Get a VR.org article by slug

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing exactly what data is returned (metadata, URL, body HTML). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional context.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists return values. No extraneous information.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, read-only, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.

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% for the single 'slug' parameter. The description reinforces its purpose with an example but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing description.

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 explicitly states it returns full content of a VR.org original article by slug, listing included metadata (title, author, date, category, tags, snippet, canonical URL, body HTML). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vr_originals, which only list articles.

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 usage via slug but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_vr_news or list_vr_originals. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is given.

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