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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value is what it adds: return payload is full text plus FAQ, and a URL is included for citation. It also discloses a filtering rule (drafts excluded), which is behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded before the description of what is returned. Every clause contributes either routing or return-value information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (full text and FAQ, plus a URL to cite) and what is excluded (drafts). The only gap is slug formatting/validation guidance and what happens on an unknown slug, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the description must carry the load; it only says 'by its slug', implying the slug originates from a prior search result. It adds useful provenance but no format, length, or error behavior detail beyond the schema's constraints.

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 specific verb (fetch) and resource (one published Official Translator guide, full text plus FAQ) and names the scope qualifier 'published'. It clearly contrasts with the sibling search_published_guides, which only finds results rather than returning 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?

'Use this after search_published_guides finds a relevant result' gives explicit sequencing and points to the alternative tool. 'Draft articles are never returned' adds a negative scope, though there is no explicit statement of when not to call it (e.g., non-guide content).

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