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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return format (full article as plain text, plus its link), which tells the agent it gets complete rendered content rather than a summary or metadata. Error behavior for a bad slug is the remaining gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the dependency hint. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what is returned, in what form, and where the input comes from. Only the invalid/unknown-slug case is unaddressed, which is minor at this complexity.

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 100% and the slug property's own description already says it is the value returned by search_articles, so the description's matching sentence adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 for a single fully documented parameter.

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?

"Returns one Knowledge Center article in full as plain text, with its link" gives a specific verb (returns), a specific resource (one article), and the shape of the result. Contrasting "one" against the sibling search_articles makes the distinction usable without opening the schema.

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?

"Use a slug from search_articles" names the sibling that must be called first and the required input provenance, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or failure conditions (e.g. what to do if the slug is unknown), so not a 5.

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