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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context by disclosing that the response includes the full text and the FAQ, which is beyond what annotations say. It stops short of noting language behavior or that the article must exist.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and its payload. It is appropriately short for a simple getter, though it is so terse that it omits any routing or usage context.

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, so the description helpfully characterizes the return ('full text ... with its FAQ'). Combined with 100% schema coverage for the two parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling routing is left implicit.

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% — both slug and lang are fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and the 'use the user's language' instruction. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 (get) and resource (blog post/article) and scopes it to a single item ('one blog article'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling hilo_list_blog_posts. It also names the payload ('full text ... with its FAQ'), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the read nature is unambiguous.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no indication of prerequisites. The only routing hint ('from hilo_list_blog_posts') lives in the slug parameter schema, not in the description. An agent gets no explicit instruction that it must first obtain a slug from the list tool.

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