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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: only *published* articles are retrievable, and the payload is markdown including sources and provenance, which tells the agent what shape and trust characteristics to expect.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the output format and content types packed in without filler. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 full schema coverage, the description supplies what matters: scope (published only) and return format. It stops short of covering failure behavior for unpublished or nonexistent slugs, which is the only remaining gap for an agent calling it blind.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that slug comes from a search tool or the end of a URL, plus the pattern constraint. The description adds no further meaning about slug format, normalization, or case sensitivity, so 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?

"Get any published article... as markdown" gives a concrete verb, resource, and output format, and the parenthetical enumerates the article types covered. It separates itself from the search_* siblings by being a fetch-by-identifier operation, but it never distinguishes itself from get_case, the other 'get' sibling, so an agent can't tell story vs. case apart from this text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'get... article' with a slug implies you call it once you already have an identifier, and the retrieval path (search tool or URL suffix) lives in the schema, not the description. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_stories or get_case.

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