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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: only published posts are returned, and the article body is included in the response. It omits the read-only nature, not-found/error behavior, and whether the body is truncated, which leaves real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scoping front-loaded and no filler. Slightly terse for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, but nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value expectations; it says the article body is included but not the overall shape, nor not-found behavior. For a one-parameter getter this is adequate but leaves the agent to discover error and response semantics.

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 100%, so the single `slug` parameter and its provenance are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by slug' adds only marginal reinforcement. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a blog post') and narrows scope to 'one published national blog post by slug, including the article body.' That is enough to distinguish it from the get_contact/get_doctors/get_faq/get_location/get_practice siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with them or with search.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears in the description. It doesn't say whether to use this versus the `search` sibling to locate a post, nor what happens for unpublished or non-national posts. The only routing hint ('slug from search or the /blog URL') lives in the schema, not the description.

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