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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only published posts are returned, that the output is Markdown, and that a companion repository link may be included. It does not state error behavior or side effects, but the 'get' verb and the clear output description provide reasonable transparency for a simple read operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output format, and contains no superfluous information. Every word adds value.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return content (Markdown and optional repository link) and the constraint (published posts). It could mention handling of missing slugs, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, the description is essentially 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear example for the slug parameter. The description adds the phrase 'by slug', which reinforces the parameter usage but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 the tool gets the full content of a specific blog post by slug, indicates the return format (Markdown), and mentions the companion repository link. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_posts (which likely only lists) and get_related_posts (which gets related 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve a single published post's full content by slug. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific phrasing (full content, by slug) implies it is for detailed retrieval rather than listing or searching.

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