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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description earns credit by disclosing the shape of the returned content (story text, brand use case, charity details), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention behavior for an unknown or invalid slug.

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?

One sentence, verb-first, with the payload contents delivered as a compact colon list. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. The only gap is that it says nothing about failure behavior for a missing slug, which is minor here.

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, and the schema already explains its origin and constraints (1-200 chars). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one story in full') and enumerates what the payload contains (the story, brand applicability, charity details), which is more than a restatement of the title. It implies the single-item counterpart to find_campaign_stories, but never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The phrase 'one story' and the schema note that the slug comes 'from a search result' imply this follows a search call rather than replacing it, but the description itself does not route the agent between this tool and find_campaign_stories.

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