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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and constrains the scope to published articles, which is useful context. It does not mention error behavior or authentication, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient and nothing contradicts the read-only nature.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a uniqueness note. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding without redundancy.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool does (fetch full article), the input (slug), when to use it (after listing or direct name), and its unique role (only way to read body). No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 for the description is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the single parameter. It explains that the article is fetched 'by its slug', clarifying that slug is the unique identifier used to select the article. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter name and type, though it could further elaborate on slug format or case sensitivity.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('published SDUK Studio article'), and scope ('in full, by its slug'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting that this is the only way to read an article's body, which distinguishes it from the listing tool public-posts.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after the article listing has identified something relevant, or when someone names an article directly. It also implies when not to use it by calling out the alternative listing flow, and the phrase 'only way to read an article's body' reinforces the selection.

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