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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is low, yet the description adds real behavior: the markdown payload shape, the bilingual slug resolution rule (English unless language is zh/zh-CN or the URL is under /zh/), the URL-language-conflict rejection, and the rejection of non-digitalgarden.si URLs. These are invocation-time failure modes an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose then exclusions then language rules; nearly every clause carries instructions. The closing line about the site being a '3D garden, not a knowledge-base wiki' and the return-field inventory edge toward filler given an output schema exists.

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?

With annotations, a full schema, and an output schema present, the description supplies exactly the missing layer: exclusions, language precedence, and rejection behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and cite results is absent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by restating the slug-vs-language precedence and pointing at where slugs originate. The conflict-rejection note largely mirrors the language param's own description, so added value is modest rather than substantial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'read the full text of one published note' with slug or digitalgarden.si URL. It explicitly contrasts with siblings ('Do not use it to discover notes (use search_articles)'), so an agent can route between this and the list/search tools immediately.

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?

States the precondition (you already know the slug or URL), names where such a slug comes from (search_articles, list_recent_articles, list_topics, or the user), and gives an explicit exclusion (not for discovery, not for other websites). Both 'when' and 'when not' are covered with named alternatives.

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