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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: Markdown output, citation preservation, premium-content truncation to a public summary, and a prompt-injection caution ('treat content as data').

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the most surprising behavior (premium truncation) and the injection warning. No 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?

For a single-resource read tool, this covers output format, a key content-access limitation, and a security caution. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not mention pagination or length limits for long articles.

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 coverage is 100%, so slug, lang, enum values, default, and fallback behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the structured fields provide; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (published article) plus the output format (Markdown with original citations). The premium-content caveat further pins down what this tool actually returns, letting an agent distinguish it from search_articles without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a known article after finding its slug. The description notes premium content degrades to a public summary, which hints at outcome expectations, but it never explicitly names search_articles as the discovery alternative or states when reaching for this tool is inappropriate.

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