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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that this returns the 'full official' record including price and run link, which is useful, but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid slug or whether results are cached/live.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb, payload and input source are all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (description, price, run link). For a single-parameter lookup with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete, with only error/edge-case handling left unstated.

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 0% and the schema offers only a bare 'slug' string, so the description carries the burden. It defines the identifier semantically and, critically, tells the agent where to obtain it (search_finch_agents), which is the key detail for invoking correctly.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one Finch agent) and enumerates the payload (official description, price, run link), which is more useful than the generic title. It also names the sibling search_finch_agents as the source of the slug, letting an agent distinguish the two tools without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical '(from search_finch_agents)' effectively tells the agent this is a follow-up call whose slug input comes from the search tool, giving clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't call this if you already have the fields, or how to handle an unknown slug).

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