pull_live_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important trait that 'nothing is saved or published' — a non-persistent read/preview. However, it omits permission requirements, what the 'proposal' representation contains, and any rate or scoping constraints, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 efficient sentence front-loads the read action and tacks the safety note at the end. Compact and free of filler, though brevity here comes at the cost of substance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero parameter documentation, no annotations, and an ambiguous notion of the 'comparison' and 'proposal', the description is too thin for a tool with two required inputs and a distinct comparison purpose.

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 0%, so both article_id and project_id are undocumented in the schema, and the description adds no meaning about either. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate but does not, so this falls below the baseline.

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 names a verb (read) and resource (website content plus its comparison against 'Visibly'), but 'its comparison with Visibly as a proposal' is jargon-heavy and ambiguous about what is actually returned. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_article or get_content_status, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'as a proposal' hints at a preview context but never states when an agent should choose this over get_article or other read tools.

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