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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful defaults (current version, full detail), but never says what happens for a non-published article or a missing version, which is the one real behavioral question for this tool.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope and defaults front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could be slightly more economical.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults but omits what the return contains for the non-full detail levels and how version selection interacts with the detail enum. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description carries some burden. It explains the detail default and that 'full' yields body, claims, and evidence, which partially compensates, but the headline/summary enum values and the version parameter's semantics are left to 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+resource ('Get a published article by id'), which cleanly separates it from get_feed and get_submission by resource type. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the resource scope ('published article') is distinctive enough that an agent can route correctly.

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 establishes the default behavior ('current version at full detail'), which implies the normal use case, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to get_submission for draft content. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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