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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the returned content (full text, tags, players, highlighted data) but does not describe edge cases like missing slugs or locale-dependent behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no filler: the first sentence defines the core operation and input, the second lists return contents and gives a usage fallback. Information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with strong annotations, this description is complete: it identifies the input, the output contents, and a clear alternative for when the input is unknown. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what will be returned.

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 only 50%, and the critical 'slug' parameter has no schema description; the tool description compensates by explaining what a slug is with a concrete URL example. The 'locale' parameter is already documented in the schema, so no further description is needed there.

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 returns the full text of a published article by slug, and it specifies what the response includes (tags, mentioned players, highlighted data). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_site and list_articles by naming the exact resource and retrieval key.

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 explicitly instructs agents to use search_site when the slug is unknown, directly addressing the main prerequisite and providing a clear fallback. This is an explicit when-not condition with an alternative tool.

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