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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint annotations. It explicitly states the content is 'ungated' (no auth required) and describes the return structure (question, per-writer sections, editor's coda). It also lists known slugs, implying a closed set (aligning with openWorldHint=false). This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a list of known slugs. It front-loads the core purpose and key detail ('ungated') before the slug enumeration. There is no filler or repetition; every part serves a useful purpose.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It conveys the resource type, the exact content returned, the access behavior ('ungated'), and provides the known valid inputs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially given the supportive annotations and output schema.

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?

The input schema covers the parameter (slug) with a basic description and 100% coverage. The tool description goes a step further by listing the four known valid slugs, giving the agent concrete values it can use directly. This is meaningful extra guidance that the schema alone does not provide, justifying above-baseline scoring.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource: 'one published magazine piece's question, per-writer sections, and editor's coda.' This is not vague and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_guide, get_library_work) by naming the exact content returned. The 'ungated' detail further clarifies the nature of the resource.

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 provides clear context: this tool fetches a magazine piece by slug. It implicitly communicates when to use it (when you need a known magazine piece) and distinguishes from siblings via the content type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would justify a 5. The context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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