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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description correctly adds value by specifying the output format (readable Markdown) and inclusion of the canonical URL. It also notes the content is reference reading, giving context on its nature. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the output format and URL inclusion. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the result looks like (Markdown with canonical URL) and what the content covers. It does not mention error behavior for invalid slugs, but that is minor for a read operation.

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?

The input schema fully documents the slug parameter (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description mentions 'by slug' but adds no extra detail about the parameter's format or source. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states it retrieves one published HiBot article by slug and renders it as Markdown with its canonical URL. It also specifies the content focus (AI visibility and ANSWER framework). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_articles (listing) and search_blog (searching).

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 implies usage when a specific slug is known and a single article is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the correct context. The schema hint about slug sourcing from list_blog_articles or search_blog is not in the description, but the description itself is sufficient.

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