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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description needs no extra safety caveats. The description adds context that it lists body paragraphs for one article, but no additional side-effect info is needed given 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 extremely concise, using only two short phrases. Every word adds value, and the guidance is separated clearly with a pipe separator. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple read operation: it lists body paragraphs for a given article. The absence of output details is acceptable for a tool whose purpose is obvious from the name and parameter description, but a note on what each paragraph contains could slightly improve completeness.

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 only parameter 'id' has a schema description that fully explains its role: 'Article id returned by cms_list_articles.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add further detail. It correctly points to the source of the id.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('paragraphs' for one CMS article), distinguishing it from other paragraph-listing tools like cms_list_event_paragraphs. The guidance reinforces the specific scope.

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 guidance explicitly says 'for one CMS article', making the intended use clear. While it doesn't name alternatives, the tool name and sibling context make the choice obvious. It could benefit from saying 'use this when you need paragraphs belonging to a specific article' but that is well implied.

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