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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output is the full article content, but it does not describe response format, error behavior, or any access constraints. For a simple read operation this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, the resource, the input, and the input's source. Every word 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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and a single sibling, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and output nature. It would be slightly stronger with more detail about the returned content structure, but the definition is adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful provenance that the slug comes from search_articles, but does not add deeper parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a precise verb ('Retourne'), identifies the resource ('contenu complet d'un guide'), and specifies the lookup key (slug). Referencing search_articles as the source of the slug clearly differentiates this fetch operation from the search sibling.

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 establishes a clear workflow by stating the slug is 'obtenu via search_articles', which tells the agent to call search_articles first. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but with only one sibling, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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