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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses what is returned (metadata fields, full text, 3 related articles) and why the full text matters (accurate quoting/citation). It omits failure modes for an invalid slug, but the return contract is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's verb and payload, then the routing constraint. No filler; every clause either enumerates return content or prevents a misuse.

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?

With no output schema, the description must define the return shape, and it does so field by field plus the related-articles count. Combined with the prerequisite routing note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 (with examples) and include_content (default true, cheaper when false) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the motivation for retrieving content, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (a single article), then enumerates the exact payload: metadata (category, description, cover, canonical URL), full plain-text content, and 3 related articles. This clearly separates it from list_articles/search_articles, which appear in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use list_articles or search_articles first to find the slug,' which is a real prerequisite since slug is the required parameter. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., don't call this to browse), so it falls just short of the top band.

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