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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating what a result actually contains (Call, stance, conviction, actions, key numbers, dated tests, sources with URLs), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about behavior on an invalid slug/part or the relationship between the two addressing modes.

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 use-when clause is correctly front-loaded, but the rest is a single sprawling sentence with a long comma-chained enumeration of return fields. The enumeration does earn some of its length given the absent output schema, yet it would read far better as a short structured list rather than one run-on line.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (headline, dek, Call components, key numbers, body, dated tests, results, entities, sources). Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has what it needs. The gap is edge behavior: neither parameter is required, yet the description never says what happens if neither part nor slug is supplied, or whether one takes precedence.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including that part is an alternative to slug and that "summary" omits body paragraphs. The description's "by slug or part number" merely echoes the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: read one Part of The Buildout in full, addressable by slug or part number. The scope (single part, full read) implicitly separates it from a search-style sibling, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Use when the user wants one Part of The Buildout read in full" gives a clear triggering condition and the two addressing modes. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool named (e.g. deepstack_search for finding a part you don't yet have a slug for), so routing is only partly covered.

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