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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (HTML, script, rules) and the intended use, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that no side effects occur. For a get operation this is implied, but not stated.

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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose before detailing contents. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately describes what is returned and what can be done with it. It does not cover error cases or the 'lang' parameter, but those are handled by the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'slug' and 'lang' are documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb (returns), the resource (post template), and the specific content (HTML file, export script, and rules). It distinguishes from siblings like get_component and get_recipe by focusing on posts, so an agent can tell it apart without ambiguity.

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 description implies the tool is for fetching a post template for modification and rendering, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. It relies on the tool name and resource type for differentiation, which is adequate but not explicit.

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