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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond them: the body is returned as Markdown, it works across drafts/scheduled/published stories, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. That auth prerequisite is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations don't provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then usage guidance, then auth. It is efficient overall, though 'Full story: ...' and 'Returns one story with its body as Markdown' restate the same payload, costing a little 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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating return contents and format (Markdown body), scoping (drafts/scheduled/published), and auth needs. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with only minor gaps like pagination (not applicable here) or truncation behavior.

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% with a single parameter documented as 'Story ID from list_stories,' which even cross-references the listing sibling. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Full story' retrieval) and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, subtitle, body as Markdown, tags, canonical link, paywall and dates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like medium_get_story_stats (metrics) and medium_list_stories (multi-story listing).

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use it before update_story so your agent changes only the part you asked for.' That is a concrete when-to-use tied to a named sibling. It stops short of naming when-not to use it (e.g., versus get_story_stats), so a 5 isn't warranted.

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