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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it promises the full content is returned (not a summary) and directs the agent to 'quote what you found', which reduces paraphrasing/hallucination on a read.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the identity of the tool front-loaded and the workflow instruction second. Nothing can be cut without losing meaning.

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, but the description covers the return by stating the article comes with its full content. For a simple three-parameter getter with annotations supplying the safety profile, that is nearly sufficient; a note on the fields selector's effect on returned content would close the gap.

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 67%, with portal_slug documented as 'as returned by list_portals'. The description contributes nothing about article_id or the optional fields selector, so the schema does all the parameter work—baseline 3.

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 and resource: 'Get one help center article with its full content.' The 'one ... full content' phrasing separates it from list_articles and from the KB-document siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Call before making an edit' gives a clear usage context, effectively positioning it as the read step ahead of update_article. It stops short of exclusions—nothing says when this is the wrong tool versus get_kb_document or list_articles.

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