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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and bounded-registry behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit for disclosing the response payload shape (cited sources, normalized obligations, analysis-only verification mappings, change history) and, critically, for the null-response caveat that a miss does not prove absence.

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 action sentence, then payload contents, then the null-semantics caveat in priority order. Every sentence adds information; only the line-wrapping makes it read longer than it is.

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 one-parameter getter with rich annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete: the return content and the null interpretation are both addressed. The remaining gap is that an agent is not told where to source the slug, which is the one thing needed to actually invoke it correctly.

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 0% for the single `slug` parameter, so the description must carry meaning. It does add that the slug is 'stable' and scopes it to a policy development, but gives no format, provenance, or case/formatting rules, leaving the agent to guess how 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (policy development), and the lookup key (stable slug), plus the scope qualifier 'one full, source-labelled'. It is distinguishable from search_policy_developments by the singular-by-slug framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a slug. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_policy_developments when...' routing and no statement of prerequisites such as where a valid slug comes from.

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