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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool returns full text, which clarifies the return behavior, but it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. The annotations carry the main burden, and the description contributes only marginal 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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then gives the purpose. Every word earns its place, and the format is ideal for quick parsing.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, how it is identified, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already explains that slug is 'Article slug, as returned by list_blog_articles.' The description merely repeats that lookup is by slug and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('returns'), a specific resource ('full text of one Clausely article'), and the mechanism ('by slug'). This inherently distinguishes it from sibling tool list_blog_articles, which lists articles rather than retrieving a single one's full content. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs.

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 phrase 'for detailed, accurate answers on a specific UK or EU compliance topic' provides clear usage context, indicating that this tool is for retrieving a single article's full content rather than scanning summaries or lists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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