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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that the full article body is returned rather than a match excerpt — but says nothing about failure behavior for a missing id or about the no-output-schema return shape.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading verb, scope, and the provenance of the required argument. Nothing repeats the title or restates 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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition covers everything essential: what is retrieved, at what granularity, and where the id originates. Only minor edge-case behavior for invalid ids is unaddressed, and it is not required by the structured fields.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: it tells the agent the id is the one produced by search_knowledge, which is real guidance for constructing a valid call. The language parameter and its effect on the returned text are left entirely 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Read one article in full") and scopes it precisely to fetching a single item by id, which is clearly distinct from the sibling search_knowledge that produces those ids. An agent can tell this apart from list_companies or get_company without opening the schema.

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?

It establishes the intended workflow by saying the id comes from search_knowledge, which tells the agent when this tool follows another call. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., that search_knowledge returns snippets only and this returns full text) or what to do if the id is unknown, so it sits just below the top score.

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