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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the truncation limit (up to 6,000 characters of content) and the field set returned, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the return description, with no filler. The mid-sentence enumeration of returned fields partly overlaps the output schema, which costs a little efficiency but still aids quick scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes them for orientation. With read-only annotations, a single fully-documented parameter and a clear usage clause, everything needed to invoke correctly is present.

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 single articleId parameter, whose length constraints are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource: previewing a single blog post, along with its status and details. It clearly distinguishes from discovery tools with 'Not for finding posts'. However it never differentiates from the sibling get_article, which an agent would plausibly confuse with a preview action.

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 when someone wants to see how one blog post looks' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'Not for finding posts' is an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. get_article for full article data), so the guidance is contextual but not fully routed.

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