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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by summarizing what comes back (planning guidance, checklist, source links) and by explicitly disclaiming scope: 'not a structural assessment or fixed quote' — a caveat the agent would otherwise have no way to know.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and how it is keyed, followed by payload summary and caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 characterizes the return payload and its limits, and the single required parameter's provenance is explained. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents its pattern and max length at 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning of 'slug' itself. It does so by tying it to the output of search_interior_answers, which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value.

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 (Read) and resource (ABIS public interior answer) and names the key (slug from search_interior_answers). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which either search or return other resource types.

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 phrase 'by the slug returned from search_interior_answers' implicitly tells the agent this is the second step after a search, which is useful routing. It does not state when not to use it or what to do if the slug is unknown, but the context is clear.

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