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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description focuses on adding value: it enumerates the returned fields (title, summary, opening answer, topic, byline, link) and discloses the important limitation that only the opening is returned with the full text behind the link. The scope exclusion ('Not medical, therapy or crisis help') is behaviorally useful framing an agent could not infer from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then returns, then limitation/scope. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing 'Not medical, therapy or crisis help' is slightly clipped in phrasing.

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 usefully names the fields returned and warns that content is partial (full piece at the link) — exactly the context needed for a single-record read. It lacks only error/not-found behavior, a minor gap for a one-parameter idempotent read.

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% and the slug parameter already documents its source ('from search_wisdom'), pattern and length. The description only restates that lookup is by slug, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Read one piece from the Wisdom library') plus the lookup key (slug), and the sibling set (search_wisdom, list_topics, find_practice) makes it clear this is the single-item read versus the search/list 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?

Reading 'one piece ... by its slug' implicitly scopes it to retrieval of an already-identified item rather than discovery, and 'The whole piece is at the link' signals it is not a full-text fetch. It does not explicitly name search_wisdom as the way to obtain a slug or state when not to call it, so guidance is clear but not complete.

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