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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing return-field scope (public REST detail fields, publication-filtered relationships, public page/media links) and error semantics: unpublished and unknown IDs both yield not found, which prevents an agent from retrying on a presumed transient failure. The note that book content is catalog metadata with public sample links only is a substantive disclosure an agent could not infer from the 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the return-field and error details. No filler, and the final clarification about book content earns its place by pre-empting a plausible misunderstanding.

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 no output schema, the description must describe returns and it does (detail fields, filtered relationships, public links). Error behavior and the public-sample limitation are also covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this single-parameter lookup correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does add real meaning: the ID is a catalog ID sourced from search_articles or a related record, which is not encoded anywhere in the schema. It does not restate the numeric pattern/format the schema enforces, but that is the schema's job.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve one published article by its catalog ID') and immediately scopes the identifier's origin to search_articles, which separates it from the search siblings and from get_author/get_book by resource type.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required ID comes from ('obtained from search_articles or a related record'), which is the key routing decision for this family of tools. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases (e.g. use search_articles when you only have a title), so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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