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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by clarifying that it accesses only an allowlisted same-site Markdown twin and that text is bounded with explicit truncation, which are behavioral traits not in the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place. Front-loads the primary action and scope, then adds constraints and behavioral notes efficiently.

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?

Covers the key operational constraints (slug not URL, allowlisted source, bounded text) and it has no output schema to explain returns. The omission of return format or pagination is minor given the simple retrieval nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions slug and language, but doesn't add syntax, format, or enum details for either parameter. Baseline 3 due to schema doing minimal description work.

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?

States a clear verb (fetch) and resource (one published public blog guide by catalog slug and language). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_articles by emphasizing retrieval by slug, but doesn't explicitly name search_articles as the alternative.

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?

Provides an implicit usage constraint (slug, never URL), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs search_articles or other siblings. The description assumes the agent knows to use search_articles for discovery.

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