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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context: Markdown output, embedded MCS provenance, linked calculator ids, and per-question return shape for Q&A documents.

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?

Core purpose and format are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow hint follows immediately. The closing citation rule is legitimate guidance but drifts from invocation and adds a third paragraph of modest value.

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 required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies more than enough: purpose, source of the slug, output format, and content shape. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's own slug description already states 'from search_documents or list_documents. Required.' The description merely restates that, adding no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Fetch the full text of one guide, article or set of questions by its slug') and adds the output format ('as Markdown, not HTML'). By positioning list_documents/search_documents as slug sources, it implicitly distinguishes itself as the retrieval step in the workflow.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: slugs come from search_documents or list_documents, so this tool is used after one of those. No explicit when-not or exclusion condition is given, but the sequencing context is unambiguous.

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