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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe error behavior if the slug does not exist. It does add value by specifying what is returned (full markdown body and frontmatter), but leaves other behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to convey the purpose and key identifier. It does that effectively by stating the return content. A minor omission is the lack of any note about behavior when the slug is not found, but this is not critical given the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is the project's slug, but does not explain slug format, provide examples, or note constraints beyond the schema's minLength. This is minimal but sufficient for a single well-understood parameter.

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 ('Return'), names the resource ('project'), and specifies the lookup key ('by slug'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post and list_projects, which target different content types or operations.

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: if you have a project slug and need the full markdown body and frontmatter, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like list_projects or get_post, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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