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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: it explains that the free layer is always returned, what fields that includes, that a member Bearer token with scope read:full adds body_md, and that unauthenticated calls return a paywall pointer.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add necessary auth and response-layer detail without repeating schema information.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the input source, the response contents in both auth states, the required auth scope, and the paywall behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents the slug parameter with an example, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying where to get the slug (from search_fixes) and that it identifies a single fix, which helps the agent construct the call correctly.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Read one AskAgent fix by slug') and immediately orients the agent by pointing to search_fixes as the source of slugs. This clearly distinguishes get_fix from its siblings list_samples and search_fixes.

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 parenthetical '(get slugs from search_fixes)' tells the agent how to obtain the required input and implies this tool is the follow-up read step after a search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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