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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only') plus the exact shape of the returned record. It omits error behavior for an unknown key and any auth/rate-limit context, but the read-only and return-content disclosures are substantive.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler; the lookup semantics come first and the return/safety information follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the single parameter is fully specified, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only gap is what happens when the key does not resolve.

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 already 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's 'The entry key/slug' by defining the key as the slug used in its Anclum URL, clarifying the expected format.

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 resource (one catalogue entry) with a clear scope qualifier ('one' vs. list/search siblings). An agent can distinguish this from list_categories and search_tools without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'by its key' implies the precondition that the caller already has a key, and the sibling names imply this is the lookup path rather than the discovery path. However, no alternative is named explicitly (e.g., 'use search_tools first if you don't have a key') and no when-not conditions are given.

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