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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key context about cost ('paid, $0.01/req or pass') and licensing ('licensed'), which are important for agent decision-making. However, it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or the exact structure of the metadata, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences plus an Args section. Key details (full article, markdown, cost) are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, cost, and how to obtain the slug. The only notable omission is specifying what 'metadata' includes, but this does not hinder correct invocation. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has zero description coverage for 'slug', but the description compensates by explaining that it is 'the article slug from list_articles'. This adds meaningful provenance and usage context beyond the bare schema property. It does not detail format or examples, but it is sufficient for a simple string identifier.

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 the tool returns 'One full licensed Monexus article as markdown plus metadata', specifying the resource (article), format (markdown), and content (full article with metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles, which likely returns summaries, and get_context/get_thread, which target different resources.

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 implies usage by instructing that the slug comes 'from list_articles', suggesting a workflow where list_articles is called first. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_context or search_wire, nor does it provide exclusions or conditional usage guidance.

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