Get Tool Details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the payload contents (pricing, score breakdown, GDPR status) but conflicts nothing and says nothing about missing-slug behavior or rate limits; the output schema covers the return shape, keeping this at baseline.

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 tight sentences with the action and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. The trailing field enumeration is mildly redundant given a declared output schema, but it remains scannable and does not pad the definition.

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 single-required-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of a 'find the slug first' pointer leaves a small gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself with concrete slug examples ('chatgpt', 'midjourney'). The description only restates 'URL slug' without adding format rules such as casing, dashes, or how a slug is obtained, so it earns the baseline.

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') and resource ('details about a specific AI tool') plus the lookup key ('by its URL slug'), and enumerates what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from broad siblings like search_ai_tools or get_trending_tools, though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must already possess a URL slug, which hints that search_ai_tools or get_trending_tools precede it. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus compare_ai_tools, find_similar_by_philosophy, or other per-tool siblings, and no exclusions.

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