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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds some useful context ('public', 'website') but does not disclose behavior around not-found cases, locale defaulting, or response shape. It adds moderate value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and retrieval key.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two parameters, one required, clear annotations), the description is nearly complete for invoking it correctly. The only meaningful gaps are not naming the search alternative explicitly and not explaining locale behavior, but neither is essential for a simple slug-based read.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It clarifies the role of 'slug' via 'by slug', but it says nothing about the 'locale' parameter, its optionality, or its default/constraints beyond what the schema enum already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('one public SaSame website knowledge record'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_search and makes the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you already know the slug and need a single record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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