Get one SANTISMM Lab definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the retrieved content and noting the executable endpoint is included only 'when one exists', plus direction to avoid reimplementing formulas. This is a clear, non-contradictory addition beyond the 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 carry purpose, scope, usage sequencing, and an alternative-behavior warning with no filler. Every phrase contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it specifies what the tool returns, when to call it, and how it relates to sibling tools. No critical missing context prevents correct use.

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 only parameter, slug, has 100% schema description coverage with an example. The description adds 'by slug' and implies the slug comes from list_labs or search_all, but it does not need to elaborate further because the schema already documents the parameter fully. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Lab by slug', and enumerates exactly what is included (formulas, assumptions, related SANTISMM content, executable endpoint). It is clearly differentiated from the many sibling get_* tools by naming the Lab resource and scope.

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 gives explicit usage context: use after list_labs or search_all, and use a named calculate_* tool rather than reimplementing a published formula. This tells an agent both when to call this tool and when to prefer an alternative.

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