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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful list of returned metadata fields, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown slug, auth requirements, or rate limits, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The long field enumeration is dense but every item is informative about the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place return data is described, and it does enumerate the fields returned, including coverage and last-change time. It stops short of explaining failure modes for an invalid slug or how to obtain a valid one, which would complete the picture.

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 fully documented with a slug example and pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'for one indicator' restates cardinality without adding format or lookup guidance, matching the baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns ... for one indicator') and enumerates the metadata fields, so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_indicator_series or search_indicators, so it falls short of a 5.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only routing hint ('Indicator slug from search_indicators') lives in the input schema, not the description, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_indicator_series.

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