Get Article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: articles are HTML knowledge-base documents, may be scoped to a company or be instance-global, and that 404s are indistinguishable. This is more than the annotations alone provide, though it doesn't cover response shape or error cases in depth.

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?

Three sentences plus a one-line operation class. Every sentence earns its place: the core action, domain context, and a critical usage caveat. No redundant elaboration.

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 2-parameter get with no output schema, the description covers the resource nature, global/company scoping, and the 404 ambiguity. It doesn't describe the exact return payload, but the response_format parameter and article description provide sufficient understanding. Slightly more detail about response content would push it to 5.

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 100% — both id and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description mostly reiterates 'numeric id' and provides domain context, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Fetch one article by its numeric id' — a specific verb, resource, and lookup key. It distinguishes this get tool from sibling hudu_list_articles by explaining that ids are required and not guessable, and explicitly points to list for name-based lookup.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use hudu_list_articles when only a name is known, and cautions that 404 responses are ambiguous (missing vs. unrouted). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond generic phrasing.

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