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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that only published articles are returned and that the output is readable Markdown with a canonical URL, but it does not state error behavior, authentication needs, or read-only guarantees.

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, compact sentence that leads with the key facts: one published article, identified by slug, and the output format. Every word contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important caller needs: input slug, article status, and output format. It does not cover failure cases or formatting details, but the simple scope makes this a reasonably complete description.

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 sole parameter, slug, is already described in the schema as coming from list_blog_articles or search_blog. The tool description only repeats 'by slug' and adds no extra format, example, or edge-case guidance.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate a single, published HiBot blog article is retrieved by slug and rendered as Markdown with its canonical URL. The phrase 'One published HiBot article' distinguishes it from case studies and from list/search siblings.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: the description says 'by slug' and the parameter schema says the slug comes from list_blog_articles or search_blog, which hints at the workflow. However, there is no direct statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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