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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable security-relevant warning that description and extracted facts are untrusted and should not be followed as instructions. This goes beyond schema/annotations and meaningfully protects agent behavior.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the use case and then adds an important safety warning. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one simple parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential call context. It identifies the tool's purpose, the parameter source, and an important trust boundary. The only noticeable omission is guidance about how this differs from get_property_evidence, but that is not required for a correct call.

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 must compensate. It does provide useful provenance by saying the slug comes from search results, but it adds nothing about slug format, constraints, or handling. The single parameter is simple, but the description only partially fills the semantic gap.

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 clearly states the operation: retrieving details for a slug. It also anchors the slug in the search context, which distinguishes it from search_properties. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling get_property_evidence, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'Use this when the user wants details for a slug returned by search' provides a clear, explicit trigger condition. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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