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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the actual return surface, including the body as Markdown, the quality verdict, and what autopilot would do with the article — genuinely useful context with no output schema to carry it.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the core fact ('One article in full') before the field enumeration. The list is long but each item earns its place, since there is no output schema to describe the payload.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential retrieval question and enumerates the returned fields well enough for an agent to know what it gets back. Minor gaps: no mention of not-found behavior or of the autopilot 'what it would do' being hypothetical.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema (itemId provenance, org fallback to the current org). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline when 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 phrase 'One article in full' unmistakably identifies a single-resource retrieval, and the enumerated payload (body, title, slug, meta, tags, keyword, research, verdict, autopilot stance) distinguishes it from the sibling seovyn_list_articles. It stops just short of 5 because it never states an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says this is the read path for a single article versus seovyn_list_articles, seovyn_review_article, or seovyn_edit_article. The only routing hint ('itemId from seovyn_list_articles') lives in the schema, not the description.

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