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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that output is full-text Markdown. It does not say what happens for an unknown slug (error vs empty result) or whether long articles are truncated, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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, zero filler, and the what/return-format statement is front-loaded ahead of the routing guidance.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, return format, and routing context. Slightly incomplete only on failure behavior for an invalid or missing slug.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a concrete example slug, so the schema does the work. "by its slug" restates the schema field without adding format or lookup semantics.

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 ("Fetch the full text of one Bramvia article by its slug") plus the return format (Markdown). This is clearly separable from search_bramvia_knowledge and from the sibling assessment/estimation tools.

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 after search_bramvia_knowledge when you need the complete content rather than a summary" names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects this one over it. The sequencing (after search) is also explicit.

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