Read article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by describing the default output ('clean plain text, internal blocks expanded') and the alternative HTML mode, which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about missing-article behavior or error cases.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then what it returns. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return value and its two formats, which is the key unknown. Minor gaps remain (error/missing-article behavior, language fallback is only in the schema), but for a simple single-record read it is 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the enum by explaining the semantic difference between the two formats – text is the readable default with blocks expanded, HTML is intended for editing – which is real guidance the schema does not provide.

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 and resource ('Read one article') and adds what the result looks like (plain text vs HTML). It is clearly distinct from list_articles/search_knowledge_base by implication, though it never names a sibling to sharpen that boundary.

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 only implied: the word 'article' plus the 'from search_knowledge_base or list_articles' hint in the schema suggests this is the follow-up to a search. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no prerequisite conditions.

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