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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It discloses the return format ('full markdown'), the availability filter ('published'), and the lookup key ('slug'), but does not mention error behavior, read-only guarantees, or what happens for unpublished/private slugs.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys resource, scope, and return format without wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the resource type, and the output format. Minor gaps around not-found/error handling and private-access behavior exist, but they are not critical for basic 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%, so the schema already documents the slug parameter. The description only restates the slug mechanism and adds the 'published case study' context, which is useful but does not significantly go beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies a single resource ('one published case study'), the return format ('full markdown'), and the lookup mechanism ('by slug'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_case_studies, get_post, and get_resume.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a slug and need the full markdown of one published case study. It does not explicitly state alternatives, exclusions, or the need to first call list_case_studies to obtain the slug, though the schema property description covers that.

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