Get a Library indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool returns in useful detail, including indicator semantics, how to read it, related concepts, preview image, and source-code availability. It doesn't mention error handling or explicit read-only guarantees, but the 'Get' semantics and content listing give a solid behavioral picture.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and return contents, and the second provides a concrete usage trigger with an alternative. 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what information the agent will receive, when to use the tool, and that source code is obtained via a sibling. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with format guidance and an example ('tri-star'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema carries the meaning. 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning details for one specific indicator, listing concrete content types (what it does, how to read it, family, concept links, preview image, source availability). It also distinguishes itself from library_get_source_code by noting that the actual code is fetched by that sibling. An agent can confidently select this tool over its siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user asks about a specific indicator,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also points to library_get_source_code as the alternative when source code itself is requested, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with library_search or library_list_indicators for broader queries.

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