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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining the audience metric fields, noting that null means 'not measured', and flagging views_count as DEPRECATED because it counts platform page hits rather than the client's site — the kind of caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the caveats packed into parentheses. The dense metric list is justified by the deprecation warning it supports, though it makes the second sentence heavy.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, the meaning of null metrics, and the deprecated field. Only the locale/translation behavior is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so both the id and locale parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that lookup is by ID and says nothing about the locale/translation parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 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 and resource ('Get full content and metadata of an article by ID') and clarifies the scope of the returned data, including audience metrics. It is clearly distinguishable from list_articles or publish/refresh_article by the by-ID retrieval framing, though it never names a 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 only implied: fetch a single article's content when you have its ID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_articles or get_metrics, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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