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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond that — only published tools are retrievable — but says nothing about not-found behavior or what a miss returns.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, with the distinguishing qualifier ('published') front-loaded before the lookup key. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers what is needed to select and call it. The main omission is not-found/error behavior, which no other field supplies since there is no output schema.

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 single slug parameter is fully constrained (pattern, length bounds) in the schema itself. The description only restates 'by its slug' and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource (one published AI governance tool) with the retrieval key (slug). The 'published' qualifier scopes the result set meaningfully. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, search_listings, but the singular-vs-plural distinction makes the split inferable.

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 implied by 'by its slug' — the caller must already know the exact slug, which suggests this is the direct-lookup path rather than the discovery path. No explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_listings or what to do when the slug is unknown.

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