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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the preview is 'focused' and returns publication state, metadata, and a bounded excerpt, which helps set expectations. It doesn't contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and key outputs with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause contributes.

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 an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input requirement and the preview contents. The only slight gap is not clarifying the difference from the full-article getter, which matters for routing but not for invocation.

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% for the only parameter articleId (including type and length), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds that the article must be 'known,' but no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 specific verb ('Render') and resource ('known Polyblog article'), and adds the output contents (publication state, metadata, bounded excerpt) so its purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_article or show_blog_overview, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'for a known Polyblog article' implies the tool is for articles whose ID you already have, not for discovery. It does not state when to prefer this over get_article or show_blog_overview, nor any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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