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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on result ordering, match behavior, or how the limit interacts with result count. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the purpose plus the workflow hook are stated first. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 read-only search with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly adequate, but the undocumented limit semantics and unspecified match behavior leave the agent guessing on output size and precision.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it partially does by clarifying that 'query' accepts a symbol or a name. The 'limit' parameter (1-50) is not explained anywhere, and the match semantics (exact vs partial) remain unstated.

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 and resource ('Find slugs by symbol or name') and names the downstream tool it feeds (tc_get_token_digest), which separates it from list-style siblings like tc_list_tokens. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tc_list_tokens or tc_get_token.

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?

It implies usage as a prerequisite lookup before tc_get_token_digest, which is useful workflow context. However, it gives no when-not guidance and doesn't explain why an agent would search here versus calling tc_list_tokens directly.

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