get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates that inline/related data are optional. It says nothing about not-found behavior, permission requirements, or what the response contains; the admin caveat for inlines lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('Get a specific Article by ID') and the optional modifiers trailing. No filler, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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-by-ID tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves gaps a caller may care about: error/not-found semantics, permission notes, and how the inline/related expansion affects payload size.

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 all three parameters (id, include_inlines, include_related) are already documented with types and defaults. The description's 'optional inline and related data' phrase maps to those flags but adds no syntax, format, or cost/performance context beyond the schema.

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 (Get) plus resource (Article) and the keying mechanism (by ID), which clearly separates it from list_article and bulk_article. It stops short of distinguishing itself from neighbors like describe_article or related_article, whose scope overlaps with the 'inline and related data' clause.

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 implied: fetch one article when you already have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of alternatives (describe_article, related_article, find_models), and no statement that the ID must come from list_article or search first.

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