Get manufacturer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered and the description needn't repeat them. It adds genuine value beyond that by specifying the returned payload contents, including provenance fields ('source links', 'PlushSource listing URL'), which tells the agent the record is citation-bearing. It does not state what happens when the slug is unknown or stale, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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, no filler, and the identity-plus-field-list is front-loaded before the usage directive. Every clause earns its place and nothing is restated from the annotations or schema.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the compensation needed, and it is supplied. The only omission is failure behavior for an unresolved slug, which is minor but non-trivial for a tool whose output the agent is told to quote from.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage, including its provenance ('as returned by search_manufacturers'). The description adds no format, casing, or normalization detail for the slug, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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 and resource ('Return the full record for one manufacturer') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back: capacity, founding year, location, source links, and the PlushSource listing URL. That field list distinguishes it cleanly from search_manufacturers (discovery) and compare_manufacturers (side-by-side), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 second sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this before quoting any fact about a specific listing,' and the slug parameter is tied back to search_manufacturers, implying the fetch → detail workflow. There is no stated when-not condition or named alternative for the case where multiple manufacturers are needed (compare_manufacturers would apply), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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