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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the scoping detail that the fetch is by a single slug, which is slightly more context than the annotations provide, but it does not disclose anything about return format, error behavior, or authentication.

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 description is six words and contains no filler; every word contributes. It is also front-loaded with the core action and object.

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 fetch-by-slug tool with strong annotations, the description is largely adequate: an agent can identify the required input and understand the operation is a read. The lack of any guidance on return shape or error conditions is a minor gap, and the presence of a preview_tool sibling leaves some ambiguity about when this is the right choice, but the core calling contract is clear.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the description explicitly explains that slug is the identifier used to fetch the tool, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and minLength. This is sufficient for a single-parameter get operation.

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'), a specific resource ('one tool'), and the lookup key ('by slug'), so an agent can tell this is a singular fetch-by-identifier operation. It is clear on its face, though it doesn't explicitly call out how it differs from preview_tool or search_tools.

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 description implies the use case: call this when you know a tool's slug and need the full tool record. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_tools or preview_tool, and no exclusions are stated.

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