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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial value beyond them: exact return structure (Markdown body with metadata header plus a JSON block containing canonical URL, citation/bibtex, and referenced resources) and the always-free/not-paid-corpus constraint. Error behavior is not covered, but the added behavioral detail is strong.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, free-status, and discovery alternative, with the core action front-loaded. No repeated or filler content.

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 read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value detail (Markdown body and JSON block) and the free/paid boundary. Nothing essential for correct invocation is omitted.

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%, and the single slug parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema. The description only adds the phrase 'by slug', so it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (one ChangeGamer guide / editorial article), selector (by slug), and output shape, clearly distinguishing it from discovery tools. Naming list_articles and search as separate discovery routes further sharpens its role among siblings.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to list_articles or search when it lacks a slug, which is the main ambiguity for this tool. It does not explicitly say when to use get_resource instead for non-guide resources, but the guide/editorial-article framing provides clear context.

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