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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral detail such as whether the utility is invoked or whether any state changes occur, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the relevant returned fields compactly. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation contents.

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 one required parameter, explicit return-field list, and read-only annotations, the description gives an agent enough to understand what the tool does and what it will receive. It omits minor guidance on where slugs come from or how this differs from list_tools/search_tools, but those are not essential for calling 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 description coverage is 0%, but the phrase 'for one utility' makes it clear that the required 'slug' parameter identifies which utility to describe. It does not explicitly say 'slug is the unique identifier' or provide an example, but for a single simple string parameter the intended meaning is reasonably inferable.

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 names a specific action ('Get'), a clear resource ('one utility'), and enumerates the exact information returned: schema, price, limits, side effects, retention, and HTTP endpoint. The 'for one utility' scope also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tools and search_tools, which enumerate or locate utilities.

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 implies use when an agent needs detailed metadata for a single known utility, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of search_tools or list_tools. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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