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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return content, specifically that the JSON Schema body of the current version is included, and that lookup is by slug or id. No contradictions with 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the return content and purpose. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description gives enough context to invoke correctly. It clearly identifies the resource, lookup keys, and primary use case, though it leaves minor edge-case handling (e.g., both args provided) to the 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters and their mutual-exclusion relationship. The description restates 'by slug or id' but adds little beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without significantly enriching parameter semantics.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get a single schema'), the resource ('schema'), the lookup keys ('slug or id'), and the key return content ('JSON Schema body of its current version'). It also gives a concrete purpose ('use it to author a datafile that conforms'), which distinguishes it from list_schemas and other get_* 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 provides a clear use case: when you need the current JSON Schema to author a conforming datafile. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_schemas or version-specific getters, but the singular 'single schema' and 'current version' wording imply the intended scope.

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