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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious fact — the returned command comes bundled with its flow — which matters given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found/error behavior for a closed-world ID lookup.

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 twelve-word sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is padded or restated.

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 two-parameter, read-only getter this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say more about what 'flow' contains and what happens when the ID is invalid. As written, an agent knows what it fetches but not what it gets back in any detail.

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 both parameters are documented there (app_id even points at list_apps). The description adds no elaboration on parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Gets a slash command of an app' names the entity and its owner scope, and 'with its flow' hints at the payload shape. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_commands or get_flow_guide, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 only implied: fetching a single command by ID presupposes you already have app_id and command_id, but the description never says to obtain them from list_apps/list_commands (only the schema mentions list_apps) or when to prefer this over list_commands. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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