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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: includeText returns the full plain-text body, and unwritten scheduled entries return no body. It omits any note on size, pagination or error behavior, but the added disclosure is real.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact inventory of returned fields and two short caveat sentences. The field list is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema; no filler sentences.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly, plus notes the empty-body case for scheduled articles. Minor gap: no guidance on choosing between sibling read tools or on includeHtml's default, both of which the schema partly covers.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates includeText semantics that the schema already documents and does not add format or constraint detail for site/id beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Read one article in full") and then enumerates exactly what is returned (title, slug, meta description, URLs, HTML body, excerpt). This clearly distinguishes it from list_articles (many) and get_article_preview_url (URL only) without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by "Read one article in full" and it does tell the agent to pass includeText for plain text and that scheduled entries have no body. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between this tool, list_articles, get_article_preview_url and update_article, so no when-not guidance exists.

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