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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful context by disclosing what comes back (full text as markdown, plus sources and provenance), which matters since no output schema exists. It omits error behavior for missing or unpublished slugs, keeping it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, format and payload all named; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a stated return shape, the description is essentially complete. The only real gap is failure behavior when a slug is unknown or unpublished, which is minor here.

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% and the single slug parameter is well documented there, including its regex constraints and where to obtain it. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (full text of one published Agentry story) plus the return format (markdown, with sources and provenance). The singularity of 'one published story' implicitly contrasts with the plural search_stories sibling, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Published' signals that drafts or unpublished items are out of scope, and the schema notes where to get a slug (search_stories or the URL). However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to adjacent tools, leaving the search-then-fetch workflow to inference.

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