get_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Read' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also discloses what the response includes (full content, source, metadata), which is valuable. However, it does not mention error conditions, authorization needs, or rate limits, which are less critical for a simple read but still absent.

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, well-structured sentence conveys the entire purpose. Every word adds value, and there's no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It front-loads the action and resource effectively.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema provides sufficient information. It states what the tool does and what the response includes. However, it does not explicitly mention the absence of pagination or the expected response structure (e.g., whether metadata is a field or headers), leaving a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides a description for the 'id' parameter ('Article ID'), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter beyond confirming that it identifies the article to read. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool 'Read a single article' with the scope of 'full content, source, and metadata.' The verb 'read' and resource 'article' are specific, and the singular phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_articles' (plural). It conveys a precise purpose without ambiguity.

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 implies its use case: fetching a single article's content and details. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'Use get_articles for multiple articles'). The singular 'single article' suggests when to use it, but there's no explicit guidance versus get_article_of_hour.

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