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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response is the 'full markdown body', which is useful return-content context, but it does not mention error behavior such as a missing slug.

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 tight sentence with zero waste. The return content and lookup key are front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple single-parameter read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and annotations cover safety behavior. For a one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is nearly complete, though it could briefly note what happens if the slug is not found.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single slug parameter, so the description must compensate. It says only 'by slug' and does not explain slug format, origin, or constraints beyond what the parameter name and schema pattern already imply.

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 states a specific resource and return content: the full markdown body of one article, identified by slug. It implies a lookup operation and distinguishes itself from search_articles by emphasizing 'one article', though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 by noting retrieval by slug, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_articles or other siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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