Get one Commertize article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: markup and embedded metadata are stripped, telling the agent what form the returned text takes. Permissions or rate limits are not mentioned, keeping this out of 5 territory.

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 tightly worded sentence with no redundancy; the resource identity is front-loaded and the output-transformation note follows immediately.

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 one required, fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call this correctly. Return-value details are rightly left to the output schema.

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 goes slightly beyond the schema by stating where the slug originates ('from get_news') and confirming the parameter selects a single article, which aids correct invocation beyond the schema's format example.

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 specific resource and scope: 'Full published text of a single Commertize news or commentary article, by slug'. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the list-oriented sibling get_news, which is explicitly cited as the slug's source.

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 gives clear context for use by stating the slug comes 'from get_news', which routes the agent through the correct sibling first. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer a listing tool for multiple articles), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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