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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, error handling, or output details beyond the vague 'definition and reference copy'. The word 'Get' implies read-only but does not explicitly disclose it. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 redundant words. Every phrase adds value: 'by slug' clarifies the lookup key, and the reference to 'search' is actionable. It is a model of concise, direct writing.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of the return ('definition and reference copy') but not the structure or format. It also misses the 'standard' enum value and provides no information about error cases or prerequisites. For a simple lookup tool with only two parameters, this is a minimally viable description, but it leaves several gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It gives meaning to 'slug' (find via search) and 'family' (lists categories dictionary, technology, sensor, file format). However, it omits the 'standard' value from the enum and does not explain that 'family' must take one of the enumerated values, leaving the mapping incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), clearly identifies the resource ('definition and reference copy'), and names the categories (dictionary term, technology, sensor, file format). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' tool by instructing to use 'search' to find slugs, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a definition/reference copy for a known slug. It explicitly directs users to 'search' for slugs, which is a useful alternative/companion. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., comparing formats or identifying a format from a file), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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