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

The description matches the annotations: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. It states that the tool 'returns' data, implying no side effects. The description adds context by specifying the exact output format (title, summary, date, author, full body), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences to convey purpose, output format, and slug source. There is no redundant or filler content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is complete. It specifies the output format, input parameter, and the source of valid slugs. No output schema is present, but the markdown fields are explicitly listed, so an agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 single parameter slug is well-described in both the schema and the description, with a concrete example. Since the schema already covers the parameter with 100% coverage, the description adds modest extra clarity with the example, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: returning a single build-log post in markdown format by slug. It also differentiates from siblings by explaining that slugs come from cotal_list_posts or cotal_search, distinguishing it from those tools.

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 tells users where to obtain the slug (list_posts or search), which is useful guidance. It implicitly indicates that this is the tool to use when you already know the slug and need the full post content. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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