get_article_content

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the article must be 'finished' (a behavioral constraint) and returns both markdown and HTML. However, it doesn't specify error handling, prerequisites, or what happens for unfinished articles, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word is necessary to convey the tool's function.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key constraint (article must be finished). Minor omissions like error behavior prevent a perfect score, but it's largely complete.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds the context 'from generate_article', which links to a sibling, but this is minor. The schema already describes the parameter as 'The unique article ID', so the description adds limited extra 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 the tool fetches 'raw markdown and HTML content' for a 'finished article' by ID, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_article which creates articles, and list_products which lists products. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'content' are specific.

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 usage after article generation (IDs from generate_article), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making it merely adequate.

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