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

The description adds meaningful value beyond the annotations by enumerating exactly what the response contains: title, slug, status, keywords, Markdown body, meta description, summary, word count, and publication location. Since there is no output schema, this return-content disclosure is important. 'Read only' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation and adds little, but the field list carries the behavioral disclosure.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action. The field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place by compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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?

For a simple read-only, single-parameter tool with clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields, though it does not mention error behavior such as an invalid or missing article_id.

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?

There is one required parameter, article_id, with 100% schema description coverage. The schema already identifies it as the Article ID, and the description does not add format or usage detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one article in full'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list-articles by emphasizing a single article and a full field set, though it does not name the sibling 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?

Usage is implied by 'Get one article in full,' which suggests retrieving a single record versus listing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list-articles, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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