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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the Markdown return format, related-article links, and the exact keyword-resolution rules including fallback to best search hit.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the return format and then the resolution logic. Every clause carries useful selection or invocation information with 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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return content as Markdown with related links. All three parameters are documented in the schema, and the description supplies the missing resolution behavior, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that id should come from help_search and by detailing how keyword matching behaves, which the schema only briefly hints at.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return the full text of one help article as Markdown, with links to related articles. It distinguishes the tool from help_search by explaining that its id comes from help_search, and from list/category siblings by focusing on fetching a single article.

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?

It explicitly gives two usage modes: pass an id from help_search, or pass a keyword. It also explains the keyword resolution order—exact title wins, shared keyword returns multiple articles to choose from, and anything else falls back to the best search hit—so an agent can predict outcomes before invoking.

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