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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by stating the lookup is free and conveys neither an execution contract nor an authorization, but says nothing about unknown-slug behavior or the shape of the returned schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the scope disclaimer second. Slight waste in the cryptic numeric counts, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the two things returned (original input schema and preview feasibility). But for a lookup keyed on an opaque slug, it omits error/not-found behavior and leaves the '24-item'/'21 algorithms' references unexplained, so an agent still has gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of 'slug'. It only implies that slug identifies one of the reviewed APIs in a 24-item catalog; it never explains what the slug denotes, how to obtain one, or what happens if it is not in the catalog. The regex pattern in the schema covers format but not semantics.

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 (free lookup) and resource (a reviewed API's original input schema) plus a secondary return (whether an algorithm can be previewed). This distinguishes it from siblings like kevaremesh_preview_owned_api and kevaremesh_find_owned_api, though the unexplained '24-item' and '21 algorithms' counts read as internal jargon.

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 negative framing ('This is not a paid API execution contract or merchant authorization') tells the agent what this tool does not do, which implicitly steers execution/authorization intents elsewhere. However, no alternative tool is named and no positive condition for choosing this over preview_owned_api or find_owned_api is given.

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