Get one lane's full record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it works without an API key on the free tier, and an unknown slug is refused with an error naming it. The return-field enumeration overlaps the output schema, but the auth and error behavior are real additions.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded and efficient, but the sentence listing return fields (description, website, workUrl, apiUrl, accessMethod, payoutMethod, verdict, evidence[]) duplicates what the output schema already provides. Dropping that clause would make the block tighter without losing information.

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 it covers everything an agent needs: purpose, routing to alternatives, auth requirements, error behavior, and an output schema for the return shape. No material gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the slug format ('lowercase, hyphenated', referencing pulse_lanes). The description adds no syntax beyond that, only the error consequence of a bad value. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get the complete record for one agent-work lane') and immediately enumerates the record's contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from pulse_lanes (browsing) and pulse_should_i_bid (spend decisions), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use after pulse_lanes when you need the reasoning behind a grade or the links to act on') plus two named exclusions with the sibling to call instead for each. Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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