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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the result is licensed for lookup purposes only, copyright belongs to the issuing body, and citations must include the source URL. That is real behavioral/attribution guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then supporting details in one compact paragraph with no filler sentences. The legal/citation clause is somewhat tangential but still earns its place as usage context.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description deliberately does not need to explain return values; it covers purpose, slug sourcing, and licensing. For a simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining where the slug originates (search results or the URL's final path segment). This adds invocation value the schema alone does not supply.

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: full-text retrieval of Q&A responses and audit inspection findings, which is distinct from siblings like get_standard or get_paragraphs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other retrieval siblings (fetch, search), so it falls short of a 5.

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 tells the agent where the slug comes from (search results or the last path segment of a page URL), which is actionable invocation context. But it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling, so usage is only implied.

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