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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by stating the tool returns specific scoping data and emphasizes its use for staying in scope, which is valuable. It does not disclose pagination or rate limits, but for a single-slug fetch those are not critical. It adds value without contradicting 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and result, then adds a practical usage hint. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: it lists the returned fields and the purpose (scope checking). There are no missing details that an agent needs to call 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 100%: the only parameter 'slug' already has a clear description ('The program slug, e.g. from list_programs'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter details, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Fetch') and a resource ('one program by slug'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (description, in-scope targets, reward tiers, SLA, safe harbor). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_programs (which lists programs) and other tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Read this before submitting so you stay in scope.' This implies the tool is for pre-submission reconnaissance and scoping. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_programs for an overview'), but the intent is clear enough for most agents. A slight deduction for not mentioning when not to use it.

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