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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the return format ('clean markdown') and the required citation URL pattern, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention not-found behavior or locale fallback, keeping it below 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 sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by the citation pattern that an agent genuinely needs to reproduce. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the lookup key, the return format, and the citation contract. Remaining gaps (locale behavior, missing-slug handling) are minor for a read-only fetch, and annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 coverage is 67%, so slug and locale are already documented in the schema and the description only needs to add value. It clarifies the slug's role by mapping it into the /kunskap/<slug>/ vs /blog/<slug>/ URL paths, which effectively explains the 'type' parameter, but says nothing about the locale parameter or its default/fallback 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 ('Read'), a precise resource ('one knowledge article or blog post'), and the lookup key ('by slug'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_articles by emphasizing single-item retrieval by slug, so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'by slug' signals the prerequisite (a slug must already be known, presumably from search_articles), which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming search_articles as the way to obtain a slug or stating what to do when the slug is unknown, so it lacks a full when/when-not routing statement.

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