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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only fetch and adds a useful behavioral rule about locale slug equivalence, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown slug, rate limits, or availability of the requested translation — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the locale caveat following in priority order.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (full article text), how to identify it, and locale nuances. The only shortfall is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't mention the Markdown format noted in the title.

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 only 50% (slug is documented, locale is not), and the description compensates by explaining that locale accepts either the English slug or the translated slug — meaning that goes beyond the enum/default in the schema. The slug format is left to the schema's example.

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?

"Fetch the full text of one article by its slug" states a specific verb (fetch), resource (article), and scope (one, by slug), which cleanly separates it from search_articles. The reference to how slugs are obtained ties it to the sibling's output rather than leaving the identifier source ambiguous.

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 names search_articles as the upstream step that produces the slug and gives explicit conditional guidance for locale (pass English or translated slug). There is no stated when-not-to-use case, but for a simple retrieval tool the routing context is clear.

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