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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds output characteristics (Markdown, CC-BY 4.0 license, fr/en content) but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or truncation for long articles.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states resource, return format, license and language with zero redundancy. Every element 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description supplies the key return-value context (format, license, languages). Only edge-case behavior (unknown slug, very long articles) is absent.

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 partially compensates by implying the locale dimension ('en français ou en anglais'), which maps to the fr/en enum, but the required 'slug' parameter (maxLength 220) is never explained or exemplified.

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 names a specific resource ('Texte complet d'un article du blog') and qualifies the return format (Markdown) and license, which is well beyond a tautology. It implies it differs from search_articles by promising the full text, but never names the sibling or contrasts explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling search_articles, nor any prerequisite about needing a known slug. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'complet'.

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