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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: the response embeds the nested plates in reading order. It says nothing about missing-slug behavior or lookup failures, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key detail (plates in reading order) is placed where it is read. It is near the edge of being too terse for a tool definition, but no words are wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is serviceable: the agent knows it fetches one story with ordered plates. It is still thin on error behavior and on how the returned story is shaped beyond the plates.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains the slug and its source, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies lookup-by-slug through 'one story' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the 3 baseline 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 sentence names a single specific resource ('one story') and what it comes with ('its plates in reading order'), which cleanly separates it from list_stories (many) and get_plate (a single plate). The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative in the description. The only routing hint ('Story slug from list_stories') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent gets no explicit signal about choosing this over list_stories or get_plate.

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