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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the functional scoping of tag filtering vs. slug lookup, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as what happens when both tag and slug are provided or how limit interacts with the two modes. This is acceptable basel-old given annotation coverage but adds only minimal behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence. The core action ('List published technical writing') is front-loaded, and the two modes are stated succinctly without wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 list/retrieve tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations fully describing safety, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on the precedence or exclusion of providing both tag and slug simultaneously. Since the schema allows both, an agent might wonder which wins; this is a small but non-negligible ambiguity.

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%, with each parameter already clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description also names 'tag' and 'canonical slug', which reinforces the parameter meanings, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema's descriptions already state. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs ('List', 'retrieve') and clear resources ('published technical writing', 'canonical slug'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on technical writing articles rather than profile or case-study content. Its two-mode structure (list by tag vs. retrieve by slug) leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear operational context: use it to list all published technical writing filtered by tag or to fetch a single article via slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (get_public_profile, list_case_studies) are obviously different resource types, so the intended selection is apparent. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but exceeds an implied-only level.

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