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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a preview of the returned content sections, which is useful because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about not-found handling or what "sourced" means in practice.

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 the verb, resource, key and return contents front-loaded in that order. No redundant framing or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter idempotent read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: what the response contains. Only the not-found/miss behavior is 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 description coverage is 100% and the slug parameter even carries a format pattern and an example ("claude"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates "by slug", adding no format, normalization or aliasing guidance beyond it.

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?

"Get the full sourced listing for one tool by slug" names a specific verb (get), resource (tool listing) and selection key (slug), and the enumeration of returned sections (capabilities, integrations, platforms, data considerations) makes it obvious this is a single-record detail lookup rather than a search. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with search_tools or compare_tools, so an agent must infer the split from the singular "one tool".

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "by slug" signals this is for when a slug is already known, which naturally positions it after a search. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named.

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