get_article_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the expected output is disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe/non-destructive, nor mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful relationship note. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential return content and how to identify the target. It lacks detailed caveats like error handling or authentication, but those are not critical for a straightforward get-by-ID tool.

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 fully describes the `id` parameter as 'Bookmark UUID' (100% coverage). The description adds that the ID corresponds to a bookmark and the tool returns article content and analysis, but this is expected and does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

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 a specific action ('Get full article content and AI analysis') and identifies the resource ('a bookmark by ID'). The parenthetical 'same as get_bookmark' further clarifies its relationship to a sibling tool, removing 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 this tool is an alias for get_bookmark, offering some context, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on choosing between this and fetch_content or other retrieval tools.

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