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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the 'published' scoping constraint and enumerating what the payload contains (services, FAQs, ratings, photos, links), though it omits what happens for an unpublished or missing slug.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, scope, key, and return contents in order of usefulness. No filler and nothing that should be trimmed.

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 read with full annotation coverage and high schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, and with no output schema it appropriately describes the returned contents. The only minor gap is the behavior when the slug is unpublished or unknown.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is already well documented there as the unique identifier of a published vendor. The description merely restates 'by its slug' without adding format, source, or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a published wedding vendor') and identifies the lookup key ('by its slug'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_vendors. However, it never names get_venue_details or search_vendors as the near alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 'by its slug' implies this is a follow-up lookup after a search, but the description never states when to use this versus search_vendors or get_venue_details, nor any prerequisite for obtaining a slug. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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