Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond that: the function's source code is returned, which matters for payload size and sensitivity. Nothing about permissions, error cases, or code size limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a four-word fragment for a tool with a required identifier and an optional workspace parameter leaves the reader with nothing to act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it says only "including its code" and omits response shape, error behavior for an unknown slug, and the meaning of organizationId scoping. For a retrieval tool with two parameters this is thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies, but the schema descriptions are near-tautological ("Slug", "Approved workspace id only."), and the description does nothing to clarify that slug identifies a hosted function or what "approved" means for organizationId. It neither compensates nor misleads.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"One function including its code" conveys that a single hosted function is retrieved and that the code payload is included, which the name alone doesn't say. But it lacks an explicit verb and never says retrieval is by slug, so the purpose is only inferred from the name/title rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to use this versus list_hosted_functions, update_hosted_function, or delete_hosted_function, all of which are close siblings. There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and nothing tying the tool to a workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.