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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (Markdown format, publication date, categories, translated URL), but says nothing about long-article pagination or whether missing articles error, and return values are partly covered by the output schema.

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?

A single compact clause with zero padding, and the most useful information (full text, Markdown format) comes first. It is a noun phrase rather than a directive sentence, which slightly weakens how fast an agent can parse the action being taken.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description does not need to enumerate return values, and all parameters are schema-documented. What is missing is guidance on the multi-part article workflow and sibling selection, which is the only real gap for a read tool of this complexity.

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% with all three parameters documented, including the nl/en enum for lang and the part-number paging. The description only implicitly touches parameters via 'translated version's URL' (lang) and adds no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 clearly identifies the resource ('one knowledge-base article') and what is returned ('Full text ... as Markdown, with publication date, categories and the translated version's URL'), which distinguishes it from the search_content sibling referenced in the schema. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not name the sibling tools it should be preferred over, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than search_content, get_page, or get_module. The only routing hint ('Article key (slug) from search_content') lives in the input schema, not the description, so the description itself offers no usage guidance.

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