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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It does add useful context about the result (accreditation registry URLs for official cross-checks) and signals a verified-data guarantee, but it doesn't cover behavior on an unknown or unverified slug, or whether the response is a single record.

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 sentence with no padding, with the key qualifier ('one verified audit firm by slug') front-loaded and the payload note following efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it says what entity is returned and highlights the registry URLs. The only gap is error/not-found behavior, which matters less given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and includes an example value (schellman), so the schema already defines the parameter fully. The description only restates that lookup is by slug, adding nothing beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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 and resource: retrieves a single 'verified audit firm' identified by slug. The singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the search-style siblings, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of the top mark for differentiation.

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 'by slug' phrasing implies this is a lookup for an auditor you can already identify, as opposed to search_auditors. However, there's no explicit statement about when to use it versus search_auditors or what to do with an unknown slug.

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