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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint and the fields returned, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and returned fields, followed by a brief API reference. Every element is compact and there is no wasted text.

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-one tool with a fully documented parameter, readOnlyHint coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It names the returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema, and no additional behavior is required for correct invocation.

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%, so the single article_id parameter is already fully documented as 'The article's numeric id.' The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single knowledgebase article by id'), and lists the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deskpro_list_articles and deskpro_search, which list or search rather than fetch one article by id.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is used when an article id is known, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus deskpro_list_articles or deskpro_search. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance is provided.

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