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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the payload is the complete body rendered as Markdown, which is useful context beyond the annotations but overlaps the existing output schema.

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 eleven-word fragment that front-loads the resource and the return format with zero filler. It is terse to the point of being a sentence fragment, but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: one post, full text, Markdown. Missing only a note that slugs come from list_posts and what happens on an unknown slug, both minor given enum constraints.

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 both parameters enum-constrained and documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the lang toggle or slug sourcing that the schema does not already state.

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?

"One blog post with its full text as Markdown" names the resource and its scope, and the singular framing contrasts implicitly with the sibling list_posts. It stops short of naming list_posts as the source of slugs, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance in the description. The only routing clue ("Slug from list_posts") lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no explicit instruction to call list_posts first.

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