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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: only published records are returned, unpublished lookups yield not_found, and slug resolution follows a product→post→page→story order.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the argument rule, then the failure behavior. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what comes back (the full record) and the error case, which is adequate. It could say more about pagination or absent-record edge cases, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by adding the XOR constraint ('exactly one of') that the schema does not encode, plus the slug resolution precedence order. It cites an example route and slug too.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one published record in full'), and the title enumerates the record types. It is clearly distinguishable from site_search/site_status in intent, though it never names a sibling to route between them.

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?

Gives an important call constraint ('Pass exactly one of route or slug') and a failure condition ('Returns a not_found error if nothing is published there'), which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over site_search for retrieval, so alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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