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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful content-scope constraint (no drafts, no third-party), but says nothing about return body format (Markdown vs HTML) or not-found behavior, which matters for an openWorld retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and following with the exclusion clause. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states that the full article body is returned, which is the essential return-value fact for this tool. Missing only secondary details (body serialization format, error behavior for unknown slugs) that an agent could discover at call time.

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 0%, so the single parameter carries no documentation of its own. The description compensates partially by clarifying that either an ID or a slug is accepted, but the parameter name already implies that, and constraints like the 255-character maximum go unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the full body of one published, FinPortal-authored editorial article') plus the lookup key ('by ID or slug'). The scope qualifiers ('published', 'FinPortal-authored', 'one') differentiate it cleanly from the plural sibling get_editorial_articles and from third-party content.

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 exclusions ('does not expose third-party articles or unpublished drafts') tell the agent when this tool will fail and therefore implicitly when to route elsewhere. It stops short of naming get_editorial_articles as the list alternative, leaving that inference to the agent.

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