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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that include_related and include_versions 'cost an extra query,' which is useful performance context, but it doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or response structure beyond listing fields.

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 dense sentence front-loads the primary resource and scope, then lists returned fields. No waste, no repetition.

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 read-only lookup tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It omits default behavior for version and pagination details, but these are minor for this tool type.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that include_related and include_versions are optional extras with cost, which is marginal added value over the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (one control by slug), and enumerates exactly what comes back: what it does, control type, license, repository, release properties, and download links. This clearly distinguishes it from list_components and search.

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 word 'one control by its slug' implies single-item lookup versus the list_components sibling, and the description clarifies what optional inclusions do. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus list_components or get_doc_page.

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