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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the idea of retrieval by slug and vaguely references 'copy and checks', without explaining what data is returned, auth requirements, or error behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that is well within any reasonable size limit and front-loads the resource. The awkward 'Copy and checks' phrasing is a clarity issue more than a structural one, but the sentence remains efficient.

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 simple one-parameter getter with annotations and no output schema, the description should still clarify what is returned. 'Copy and checks' is too vague to tell whether it returns the tool's configuration, source, or validation results, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 single parameter is already documented as 'tool slug'. The description adds an example slug format, which provides minor clarification, but the schema carries the core semantics. This matches the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

The description identifies the resource (one micro-tool) and the lookup key (by slug) with an example, but the phrase 'Copy and checks of' is grammatically unclear and does not state a clean verb. It only partially distinguishes the tool from the sibling list_tools, which enumerates many tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_tools or other get_* siblings. The only implied usage is looking up a single tool by slug; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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