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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something annotations cannot express: the call is free of credit cost, which is genuinely useful for polling decisions. It still does not describe what status values exist or the response shape.

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 with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and 'status and content' is thin — an agent cannot tell what statuses or fields to expect, nor whether content is truncated. For a simple one-parameter read this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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% and the single parameter already carries a description pointing back to create_article, so the schema does the work. The tool description adds no further constraint on id (e.g., whether stale or foreign ids error), so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (an article in this project) and what it returns (status and content), which tells an agent it is a read of one article by id. It is distinguishable from create_article, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other *_status sibling (chatbot_status) or other read tools.

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 only implied: the id description says it comes from create_article, so the natural flow is create-then-poll. The 'Does not spend credits' clause hints at when this is preferable to a costlier call, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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