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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: locale fallback to English when no translation exists. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown slug, so the added context is useful but partial.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, how the input is obtained, fallback behavior, and a citation instruction. Front-loaded with the resource and format, with no filler.

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 correctly specifies the return format (Markdown) and points at the url field for citation. Missing only edge-case behavior such as an invalid or unknown slug, which is a minor gap for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains that slug is sourced from search_blog and, importantly, that locale degrades to English when a translation is missing — semantics the enum alone does not convey. The slug pattern and default locale are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Full text of one blog article'), the return format (Markdown), and the key input ('by slug from search_blog'). This clearly separates it from search_blog (discovery) and get_doc (a different document type).

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 phrase 'by slug from search_blog' tells the agent this is the second step after a search, which is strong implied routing. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., for docs, use get_doc), so it stops just short of full alternative coverage.

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