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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral load. It states what is returned (HTML, export script, rules) and that it can be used to rebuild and render, which is useful, but it does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. For a read tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps.

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 a single sentence that efficiently summarizes the return value and its purpose. It is front-loaded with the primary action and flows logically. Slightly more explicit differentiation from siblings could improve it, but it is tight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return format, which it does at a high level (HTML file, export script, rules). However, it does not specify the exact structure of those components or how they are delivered, and with no annotations, behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects are unaddressed. Adequate but not complete.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters, including the enum for lang and the note that slug can be found via list_posts. The description adds no parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns a post template consisting of HTML file, export script, and rules. It distinguishes itself from list_posts by returning instructions rather than metadata. It could be clearer about the exact return format and how it differs from get_component or get_recipe, which also likely return templates.

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 implied: use when you need the full set of instructions to rebuild and render a post. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_recipe for recipes), and no prerequisites such as needing a slug from list_posts, though the schema notes that.

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