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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds value by specifying that the output includes the complete post body as Markdown, which is behavioral information about the response format. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds context beyond what they provide.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('One article in full') and adds a key detail about the response format (Markdown). Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent everything essential: it returns the full article including body in Markdown. It doesn't mention metadata or any error conditions, but given the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameter, it's largely complete. A minor gap is that it doesn't state whether the response includes any other fields (e.g., title, date), but 'full' implies everything.

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 description coverage is 100% – the single parameter 'slug' has a clear description with an example. The tool description doesn't add any extra parameter semantics; it just says it returns one article. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 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 clearly states the resource (one article) and what it returns (full content including body as Markdown). It distinguishes itself from list_articles implicitly by saying 'one article in full,' but doesn't explicitly name the alternative or contrast with siblings like get_case_study or get_service. The verb is implied ('get') but understandable from the tool name and title.

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 implies usage when you need the full article content, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this instead of list_articles or other get_* tools. There is no mention of 'use this for full details' or naming alternatives. The context of sibling tools suggests a distinction, but the description itself provides no explicit guidance.

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