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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying 'published' status and 'full text' return, which are behavioral constraints beyond the annotations. It does not cover error cases or authentication, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, resource, and required identifier efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema, read-only annotations). The description covers the essential purpose and return nature ('full text'), which is sufficient for most usage. It lacks details on error behavior, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides a complete description of the slug parameter with an example (coverage 100%). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating 'by its slug', so 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?

The description clearly states it fetches the full text of one published Median blog post by its slug, using a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('blog post'), and constraint ('published', 'by its slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling list_blog_posts, which lists posts.

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 full text is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_blog_posts or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It offers clear context (requires slug) but lacks explicit alternatives.

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