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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it specifies the output format (plain text), scope (full article), and the FAQ behavior (includes FAQ if present). It slightly lacks details on errors (e.g., invalid slug, rate limits) but provides key behavioral context.

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, focused sentence, front-loads the primary action ('Read one published Treatise article in full'), and adds the FAQ detail without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 1-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential behavioral details (full text, plain text, FAQ inclusion). It doesn't address error cases or output size, but these are minor given 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'slug' is already documented as 'The article's slug, from list_articles.' The description adds the article reading context but does not add much beyond schema; 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Treatise article in full (plain text) by its slug'), and adds unique value by mentioning the FAQ inclusion, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles.

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 context (fetch full content by slug) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention alternatives. It is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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