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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (title, content, status, categories, labels), which is especially useful because no output schema exists. It stops short of covering error handling or permissions.

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 two compact clauses: the core action and returned fields, followed by the underlying API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler.

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 single-entity read tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is fetched, by what identifier, and what fields come back. It is nearly complete, though it could mention not-found behavior or whether any expansion is possible.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single article_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as a numeric id. The description adds only the phrase 'by id', which mirrors the schema without adding syntax, format, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single knowledgebase article'), scoped by id, and lists the returned fields. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling deskpro_list_articles, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 makes clear it is a get-by-id operation, which is the core usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over deskpro_list_articles or deskpro_search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage implied rather than stated.

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