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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds an authentication requirement (agent API key) and specifies the return payload. This is useful operational context. However, it does not address error behavior or edge cases like missing article IDs.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that covers purpose, return fields, use case, and auth requirement. There is no redundant content, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple get-by-id tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and the auth requirement. However, it does not clarify if the tool works only for draft articles or any status, and it omits error handling behavior.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for articleId, and the description only says 'Fetch one article by id' without explaining the ID format, length, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 states the tool fetches a single article by ID and enumerates the specific returned fields (markdown body, meta, FAQs, SEO score, status, published URL). It also provides a use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_articles.

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 gives a concrete usage context: 'Use to review a draft before publishing.' It implies this is for single-article retrieval but does not explicitly contrast with list_articles or publish_article, lacking when-not guidance or alternative mentions.

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