read

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe non-mutating read, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds the meaningful scoping fact that exactly one item is returned by slug, but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid slug or the shape of the returned item.

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 short front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. It borders on under-specification for a tool whose resource noun is ambiguous, but as raw conciseness and structure it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more of the burden, yet it never defines what an 'item' is or what the return looks like. Given the generic tool name 'read' and its many siblings, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the single 'slug' parameter carries no format, source, or validity detail in the schema. The description only restates the parameter name ('by slug') and does not compensate with any expected format or example, leaving the meaning thin.

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 (return) and cardinality (one item) plus the lookup key (slug), which is better than a tautology. However, "item" is an undefined resource noun, and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling 'search' tool, so an agent cannot tell exactly what domain object is fetched.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus search or any other sibling. The phrase "by slug" weakly implies exact-key retrieval as opposed to querying, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives named.

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