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 covered. The description adds 'complete article' and 'canonical attribution' as content hints, but doesn't discuss return format, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool with strong annotations and a single parameter, the description covers purpose, param semantics, and a content hint. No output schema exists, but 'complete article' sets the right expectation. The tool's simplicity means no additional context is needed.

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 0%, but the description explains that slug is the 'URL slug', giving it semantic meaning beyond a bare string. This compensates reasonably for the schema's lack of description, though it doesn't specify slug format or constraints (which are in the schema itself).

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('one complete article') with its key identifier ('URL slug'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_recent_articles (which lists), search_site (which searches), and lookup_glossary (which covers glossary entries).

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a specific URL slug and need the full article. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the slug-based scope and sibling context make it clear when this tool is applicable.

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