Get one tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: discloses the detail depth including vendor source URL and the freshness date of pricing, and that suitability is covered both ways. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance occupies the second. Every clause 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?

Complete for a single-parameter read-only tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations and whose parameter is fully covered by the schema. The description tells the agent what it will receive and when to use the sibling instead; nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already well documented with an example ('notion' or 'zendesk'). The description's 'by slug' reinforces the parameter usage without adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('get') with a resource ('one tool by slug') and enumerates the returned fields (what it is, pricing with source URL and check date, who it suits, who not). Clearly distinguishable from siblings: it retrieves one item, search_tools finds items, get_alternatives lists alternatives.

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?

Explicitly names the condition for the main alternative: 'Use search_tools first if you do not know the slug.' Gives clear context for when to use this tool vs. search_tools. Does not explicitly address get_alternatives, but that relationship is less load-bearing for correct invocation.

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