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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it enumerates the exact return fields, names the 'links' payload and its three variants, discloses the article_not_found outcome, and documents the 25000-character cap with the 'truncated' flag. That is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite, then the return contract, then error and truncation semantics — each sentence adds a distinct fact with no filler. Dense but never redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and it does so completely: field list, related-link contents, error case, and size cap. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so the schema already documents pk and language, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that pk identifies one article but says nothing about the language parameter or its defaulting behavior, so it adds little on top of the schema.

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 ('Full data of ONE article identified by pk') and scopes it to a single record, which cleanly separates it from the search_articles / search_article_sections siblings. Capitalized 'ONE' removes any ambiguity about single vs. list semantics.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'use a search tool first to find the pk', which is the key prerequisite for a detail-by-id tool. It stops short of naming search_articles specifically and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing intent is clear.

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