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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only public articles are reachable and that output is cleaned plain text with canonical metadata, but says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid IDs, rate limits, or draft/private handling.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and identifier forms front-loaded before the return-value note.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (plain text plus metadata) and the public-access constraint. It is close to complete, missing only behavior on misses or unpublished content.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by numeric ID or slug' merely echoes the schema's own description rather than adding new syntax or format constraints.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Fetch one public Family Fishin WordPress article by numeric ID or slug.' The singular resource and 'public' qualifier distinguish it from search_articles and from get_product/get_site_page, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 (retrieve a single known article when you already have its ID or slug), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to search_articles for discovering IDs, nor a stated alternative for other content types.

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