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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description is freed to add scope context — it discloses the excerpt's 400-character cap and explicitly bounds the tool away from full article HTML. That output-shape boundary is real added value beyond the 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: identification and return fields first, then the excerpt constraint, then the scope exclusion. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the exact fields, plus a size bound on the excerpt. For a single-required-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'slug' parameter, including a format example (nolan-ryan) and its source (attic_list_articles). The description's 'by WordPress slug' phrasing adds only marginal meaning over the schema, so the 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 (Get) and resource (one atticcapital.com article) keyed by WordPress slug, and enumerates the returned fields (title, date, excerpt, markets, dossier slugs, episode numbers). This clearly separates it from attic_list_articles, attic_get_dossier, and attic_get_episode.

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?

The 'Do not fetch the article HTML' line is a genuine exclusion, and the schema notes the slug comes from attic_list_articles, implying the list-then-get workflow. But the description itself never says when to prefer this over siblings like attic_search or attic_get_report_entry; usage is only implied.

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