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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses genuinely non-obvious traits: the two body representations, the exact form of entry links in Markdown, the meaning of markdown_round_trips as a fidelity guarantee with a concrete failure mode (table spans, image sizes), and that the returned content reflects pending revisions rather than published state. That is substantive context an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

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 first sentence is an extremely long run-on that enumerates fields inside nested parentheticals, which makes it hard to parse despite containing useful facts. The content largely earns its place, but the structure delays the core action behind a wall of field enumeration rather than front-loading what the tool does.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description is more than complete enough for an agent to call this correctly. Minor gap: it never clarifies the relationship to get_article_history or get_entry, which matters in a namespace this crowded.

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 schema already documents that the single `article` parameter accepts an id, an address, or a slug. The description adds nothing about that parameter — no format examples, no fallback behavior on ambiguity. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 makes clear this returns a single article with its fields, byline, related entries, and both HTML and Markdown bodies. That level of specificity on returned content distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_articles, though it never states the verb explicitly or names adjacent readers like get_entry or get_article_history.

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 reader must infer that this is the tool for fetching one article's current content. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_article_history for past versions or list_articles for discovery. The one piece of actionable guidance ('edit in HTML' when markdown_round_trips is false) is about editing, not about selecting this tool.

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