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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds beyond them by specifying the output shape: full text of exactly one article, selected by slug. This is appropriate for a low-risk read operation, though it does not cover not-found behavior or content formatting.

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?

A single sentence states the action, resource, selector, and purpose without filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every phrase 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a 100%-covered schema, the description is complete: it names the input (slug), the retrieval behavior (returns full text), and the domain purpose. No output schema exists, but 'full text' adequately describes the return value, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 slug as 'Article slug, as returned by list_blog_articles.' The description only repeats 'by slug' without adding format, provenance, or edge-case details, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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 specifies a precise action ('Returns the full text'), a concrete resource ('one Ifá Discovery article'), and the key selector ('by slug'), while also stating the intended use case ('detailed, accurate answers on a specific Yorùbá cosmology topic'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_blog_articles, which would return catalogue entries rather than full article content.

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 gives clear context: call this when you need the full text of a specific article already identified by slug. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use it, but the 'by slug' qualifier and the contrast implied by 'one' article make the usage situation evident.

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