afl_content_text_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open world, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape (id, type, title, body, author, references, tags) and explicitly stating no authentication is needed. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two short lines plus a return line, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 single-get tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, return format, and auth requirements. Since there is no output schema, explaining the returned fields is essential and done. Nothing meaningful is missing.

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 describes the id parameter with clear semantics (Content item id, required, part of URL path) at 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Get a single text article by id,' which uses a specific verb (get) and resource (text article) and clearly distinguishes from sibling list/photo/video tools. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'single ... by id' clearly implies this is for fetching one specific article when you have its id, distinguishing from list/collection tools. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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