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

Annotations already indicate that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which lowers the burden on the description. However, the description does not mention what is returned, whether missing ids produce errors, or any other behavioral details, leaving some uncertainty.

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 repeats the same sentence twice and includes an odd 'Guidance:' and '| context: id' fragment. This redundancy and inconsistent formatting hurt clarity and make the description less concise than it should be.

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 read-only getter, the description combined with annotations covers the core purpose and parameter. It does not describe the output shape or error behavior, but these are less critical given the simple nature of the tool and the high schema coverage.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 100% schema coverage and its description adds useful provenance by stating it is returned by cms_list_articles. This goes beyond the basic schema and clarifies where the id comes from.

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 that the tool retrieves one CMS article by article id, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling getters by the 'article' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with getters for paragraphs or other CMS entities.

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 usage hint ('after cms_list_articles discovery when needed'), but it does not clearly explain when not to use this tool or how it differs from related getters. The guidance is present but minimal and somewhat ambiguous.

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