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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is interpretive context — and it delivers it by defining 'supplier-stated' as unverified self-report, 'missing' as unknown, and egg_score as evidence readiness rather than quality. It stops short of stating behavior for an unknown or unpublished slug (error vs empty result).

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 core action and return contents, then two tight interpretive sentences. Every sentence carries signal, though the terminology definitions are dense and could be split for scanability.

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 helpfully enumerates what comes back — sourced facts, evidence statuses, approved answers and overview, sources, assessment, missing information — which is exactly the right compensation. The remaining gap is the not-found / unpublished-slug case for a single required parameter lookup.

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% and the slug parameter already documents format, length, and the copy-don't-guess rule. The description only reinforces exact-match retrieval, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a published provider or media profile') with a scope qualifier ('by exact slug') that implicitly contrasts with the query-based search_providers sibling. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: 'exact slug' plus 'published' hints that you must first obtain a slug from search and that unpublished entities won't resolve. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no routing to search_providers or get_supplier.

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