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 behavioral context beyond that: the output is markdown, it terminates in the canonical URL, and partner content is explicitly labelled rather than presented as GMM journalism — an important trust distinction the annotations cannot convey.

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 resource and output format, then a single sentence carrying the partner-content caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with the 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?

An output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented, so the description only needs to orient the agent — which it does well, including the partner-content labelling. The one gap is sibling routing (why get_article over get_page_markdown or search_articles), which would complete the picture.

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 both parameters (slug, lang) are documented in the schema itself, including the slug's positional meaning and the en/dv enum values. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource combination ('full text of one published article as markdown') and enumerates the payload's parts (headline, byline, key takeaways, references, canonical URL). It implicitly separates itself from get_page_markdown by scoping to 'published article' and from the list/search siblings, but never names an alternative 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: the agent must infer that this is the retrieval step after list_recent_articles or search_articles has produced a slug. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the many sibling retrieval tools (get_document, get_page_markdown, get_first_light) that could be confused with it.

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