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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns metadata and full text, and bodies over 100,000 characters are truncated with a note. It does not explain not-found or ambiguous lookup behavior, but the added truncation detail is meaningful.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core return behavior and lookup method are front-loaded, and the truncation caveat follows efficiently.

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 read-only single-resource retrieval tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the main truncation behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify not-found behavior and how slug versus URL selection works if both are provided.

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 description mentions both lookup selectors, slug and URL, which adds some meaning beyond bare property names. The schema describes URL format but leaves slug undocumented, and the description does not explain slug format, precedence if both are supplied, or that neither parameter is required. With 50% schema coverage, this partially compensates but leaves clear gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns one brokeit.dev post with metadata and full text. It also distinguishes the tool from list/search siblings by saying it returns one post, and from get_episode by naming post as 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 implies usage by saying the post is looked up by slug or URL, which tells the agent this is for retrieving a known post. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus search_news, latest_news, or other siblings, nor when not to use it.

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