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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partly meets it. 'Does not spend credits' is a genuinely useful cost/behavior disclosure, but it says nothing about whether this is a pure read, whether callers must poll while an article is still processing, or how an unknown/not-yet-ready id behaves.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed only by the one non-obvious fact (no credit cost). No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-parameter, fully documented read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it promises 'status and content' without indicating what statuses exist or what the content payload looks like, leaving the caller unable to anticipate the response shape.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented id parameter ('Article id returned by create_article'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, range, or origin detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource ('an article in this project') and the two things it returns (status and content), which is enough to distinguish it from the write-side sibling create_article. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb ('get'), so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parameter doc ties it to create_article, and 'Does not spend credits' hints it is the cheap alternative to a credit-consuming operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings like chatbot_status.

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