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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the 'detail' parameter controls whether the response contains only the opening paragraphs or the full text including lists of places. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only tool with strong annotations this is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One article') and immediately explains the key modification. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'with every list of places' is cryptic and could be clearer. Still, it is an efficient, well-structured one-liner.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly: slug is required and the detail parameter behavior is described. The main gap is the missing usage guidance (e.g., when to use list_articles instead), and the unclear 'every list of places' phrase, but these are minor for a simple get-by-slug tool.

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 both slug and detail are already documented in the schema with their formats and defaults. The description roughly restates the effect of 'detail' ('concise' vs 'full') without adding new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'One article' and distinguishes the two content levels (opening paragraphs vs full text), so the agent knows it fetches a single article rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_articles or get_destination to draw the contrast, so differentiation rests on the word 'article' rather than an explicit comparison.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'One article' implies a singular lookup but does not tell the agent to prefer list_articles when multiple articles are needed, or to use get_destination for destinations. This is a clear gap.

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