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

The read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior is already covered by annotations, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context, namely that results are curated and ranked ('ordered by importance') and that the response includes both a description and top sources, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, with no wasted words, and the second sentence adds a practical routing hint. The parenthetical examples are somewhat dense but directly serve the agent's need to construct a valid slug.

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 that there is no output schema and only one required parameter, the description adequately communicates the returned content and ordering for a default call. It does not describe the response shape or the effect of include_related_topics, but the strong annotations and simple parameter defaults reduce the risk of misusing the tool.

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 50%, so the description must help compensate for undocumented parameters. It does help with the slug parameter by giving valid examples and pointing to slug-resolution tools, and 'top sources' loosely relates to max_sources, but it never explains what max_sources controls or what include_related_topics returns, so compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a curated topic') and defines the scope by enumerating valid categories such as person, concept, holiday, mitzvah, or object. It also states what is returned — a description and top sources ordered by importance — which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_topic_graph or get_term.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a curated topic page with description and top sources is needed. It also gives explicit routing guidance for the main prerequisite, slug discovery, by directing the agent to resolve_name or search_topics, but it does not spell out when-not-to-use alternatives like get_topic_graph or get_term.

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