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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by describing the payload (all fields, current markdown, revision history) and disclosing an auth requirement (team key), which no annotation conveys. It stops short of noting pagination or size limits, but this is a reasonable disclosure level.

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 front-loaded sentence with semicolon-separated clauses: payload first, then the revision rule, then the auth caveat. Every clause carries information, though the packed structure is slightly dense for a one-sentence definition.

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 must carry return-value information, and it does: every field, current markdown, and revision history. Combined with the stated team-key requirement and revision behavior, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination/error behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents both slug and revision, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only mild nuance via 'pass revision for an older text', and arguably understates the schema's wording that revision text is returned in addition to the current text.

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 names a specific resource ('one staged article') and enumerates what comes back (every field, markdown, revision history), so an agent knows this is a single-item read rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling cotal_get_post, leaving the staged-vs-published distinction to inference from the tool name's 'my'.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule ('pass revision for an older text') and an auth prerequisite ('Requires a team key'), which is genuine guidance. However it never states when to pick this over cotal_get_post or cotal_list_my_posts, so the sibling routing is only implied by the name.

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