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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the return payload is full HTML plus metadata, which is why a separate tool exists. It doesn't mention auth or size/latency considerations, but for a read-only single-record fetch that is minor.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what it returns, followed immediately by the reason it exists relative to list_articles and the triggering scenarios. No filler.

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, yet the description tells the agent the response contains full HTML content and metadata, and when the result is worth acting on (pre-publish check). For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing.

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% and the single articleId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its UUID format and where to obtain it. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one article's full HTML content and metadata) scoped by id. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling list_articles, which 'deliberately omits content', so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the reason to prefer this tool, plus concrete trigger scenarios: after generate_article or refresh_article, or before deciding whether to publish. That is explicit when-to-use guidance with an exclusion built in.

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