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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get full details' and does not explain the response format, whether the result includes nested objects, error behavior, permissions, or any limitations. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not substantively disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'Get' states the action, 'full details' states the scope, 'specific Decision Support Asset' states the resource, and 'by slug' states the input mechanism.

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 lookup tool, this is adequate but not complete. With no output schema and no annotations, the vague phrase 'full details' leaves the agent guessing what fields or structure to expect. Missing return-format and edge-case guidance lowers the score, though the tool is simple enough that the gap is not severe.

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 schema already defines the slug parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The description reaffirms that the slug identifies the specific DSA, but it does not add format requirements, examples, or additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get'), a clear resource ('full details of a specific Decision Support Asset'), and the key identifier ('by slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_decision_support_tool (search-oriented) and list_decision_support_categories (category-oriented) by making clear this is a direct, slug-based detail lookup.

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 phrase 'by slug' gives clear context: use this tool when you already have a specific DSA slug and need full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the slug-based specificity implies the boundary against searching or listing.

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