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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value on top: the return payload is the full Markdown body (not a summary), and there is a locale dimension for work/projects only. It does not discuss missing-item behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is genuinely additive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return format and resource, then appends the i18n caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly fills that gap by naming the response format and content type. All three parameters are accounted for. The only gap is failure behavior for an unknown slug, which is minor for a read 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 coverage is only 33% (only slug is described), but kind and lang are enums and largely self-documenting. The description adds real semantics beyond the schema: 'Case studies and projects also exist in French' implies that lang=fr applies to work/projects but not to notes, a constraint the enum alone does not convey.

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+resource ('Full text (Markdown) of one case study, project or note') and scopes it to a single item by slug. It explicitly names the sibling list_items as the source of slugs, so an agent can distinguish retrieval from listing without opening either 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?

The phrase 'as listed by list_items' tells the agent the prerequisite and the correct alternative for discovery, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g. what to do if the slug is unknown) but the intended flow is clear.

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