seodata_get_article

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add real context: 'опубликованная' signals only published (not draft) articles are returned, and 'Scope: content:read' indicates the required permission. However, it says nothing about error behavior, missing articles, or pagination/size limits.

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?

A single compact sentence followed by a scope tag; the return contents are front-loaded and there is no filler. It is efficient, though the terse style leaves explanatory room unused.

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 usefully lists the returned fields, and it flags the auth scope. But with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still lacks the input semantics and failure behavior needed to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters (storefrontSlug, articleSlug) — and it does not. Neither parameter's meaning, format, or relationship to storefronts is explained anywhere.

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 names a specific resource (a published article) and enumerates what is returned: title, content, meta, keys, cover. This clearly separates it from list_articles or get_page in intent, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus seodata_list_articles, seodata_get_page, or seodata_search. The only hint is the 'content:read' scope, which speaks to permissions, not selection between alternatives.

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