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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what fields are returned, that the body is full markdown, that ShortDescription may be null, and that unpublished articles are inaccessible. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, and the following sentences add necessary details without fluff. Every sentence contributes to the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description appropriately explains how to get the ID, what the tool returns, and an important access restriction. It could optionally mention error handling for missing or unpublished articles, but for a one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is substantially complete.

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 schema already describes articleId as 'Numeric article ID from a SearchArticles result (the ArticleId field),' meeting 100% schema description coverage. The tool description mostly repeats this same information, adding a small amount of context about published articles but no genuinely new parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full markdown body and metadata of a single published article from Svapp by its numeric article ID.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_articles and get_event by emphasizing single-article retrieval 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 description explicitly tells the agent to obtain the ArticleId from SearchArticles results, which provides actionable usage guidance. It also notes that only published articles are accessible. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple getter.

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