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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It merely says 'Get full structured facts' without explaining the return structure, potential errors, authentication needs, or side effects. The vague term 'full structured facts' offers minimal transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence (11 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes, with no repetition or filler, making it appropriately sized for this simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description is incomplete because it leaves key context undefined: what exactly constitutes 'full structured facts' and what 'directree' means. With no output schema or annotations, the agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape or behavior, increasing the risk of incorrect invocation.

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 input schema already covers the 'slug' parameter with an example ('notion', 'linear'. The description adds only the phrase 'directree slug', which marginally clarifies that the slug is a directory-specific identifier, but does not go beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action (get) and resource (full structured facts for one tool), and specifies the lookup method (by slug). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single tool, unlike compare_tools (compare), search_tools (search), and list_categories (list categories).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_tools or compare_tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the conditions for selection implicit.

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