Get Zendesk Help Center article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, lowering the bar, and the description still adds return-shape context: cleaned full text, truncation for very long articles, plan banners, breadcrumbs, dates and lifecycle classification. No auth, rate-limit or locale-fallback behavior is disclosed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the input contract front-loaded and the return contents following. Every clause carries information.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers input forms and the salient parts of the return payload, while annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only explicit error behavior for bad ids or unknown locales.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the locale default and the id/URL example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the id/URL duality but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch one official Help Center article') and the accepted identifiers (numeric id or support.zendesk.com URL). The 'one article by id' framing implicitly and cleanly separates it from the sibling search_help_center, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the required identifier: use this when you already have an article id or URL. However, it never states when to prefer it over search_help_center or what to do when the id is unknown, so the guidance is only inferable.

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