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

The description says 'Read' and 'Retrieve', which aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive annotations. It adds a small amount of context about how the paragraph is identified (by paragraph id) but does not describe error behavior or side effects, which are already covered by the annotations.

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 short but somewhat redundant: 'Read one paragraph' and 'Retrieve one paragraph by paragraph id' convey the same idea. The 'Guidance' and 'context' fragments add a slightly awkward structure, but the overall length is acceptable.

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 operation with fully described parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It does not explicitly explain the relationship between the article id and paragraph id, but the parameter descriptions make this clear enough. No output schema exists, so no details are missing there.

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 schema provides full coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions ('Article id' and 'Paragraph id'). The tool description mentions 'by paragraph id' and references the context of id and paragraph_id, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one paragraph'), and the tool name clarifies the article context. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like cms_get_article or cms_get_event_paragraph because it explicitly targets a paragraph, though it does not explicitly say 'article paragraph' in the description itself.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cms_list_article_paragraphs. There is no mention of conditions that would favor retrieval of a single paragraph over listing all paragraphs, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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