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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does convey that this is a read-only fetch and enumerates the returned fields, including conditional provider metadata. It does not disclose failure behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when a resource is not found.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action before listing return contents. The colon-delimited field list is somewhat dense, but every part adds useful information.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential details: what is fetched, how the resource is identified, and what fields the response contains. Minor gaps like error behavior or not-found handling prevent a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0% and the slug property has no description, but the description compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts a slug or numeric id. This is meaningful guidance for the single parameter, though it stops short of giving concrete format constraints or examples.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch one resource's full record') and names the identifier format ('by slug or numeric id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by emphasizing a single full record, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you already have a slug or numeric id and need the full record, versus list_resources or search_resources for discovery. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling alternatives.

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