get_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose what happens if the title isn't found, whether partial article retrieval is via section/summary_only, or return format. The 'full or partial' phrase hints at partial retrieval but doesn't explain parameters' behavioral impact.

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 redundant information. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides a usage tip. Very efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description doesn't describe return values or error cases. For a simple get tool, it's still missing critical context about response format and behavior when the article doesn't exist.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'exact title' guidance, which supplements title param but doesn't add meaning to section or summary_only beyond 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?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'article from Memory Alpha' and mentions full/partial scope. It is clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_memory_alpha or get_random_article, though the 'exact title' hint provides some differentiation.

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?

'Use exact article titles for best results' implies this tool is for known titles, but it doesn't state when to use search_memory_alpha or other alternatives. No explicit exclusions or when-not conditions.

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