get_article

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the notable behavioral detail that the response includes original URL backlinks at the top and bottom, and that the content is in Markdown format. This provides useful context beyond the schema and annotations, without contradicting them.

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 compact—two short sentences—with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second discloses a notable response feature. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (full Markdown) and an additional output trait (backlinks). Sibling tools are distinguishable, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents article_id thoroughly, including accepted formats ('09', '9', 'BLOG-09'). The description merely restates the parameter as '글 ID' without adding any new semantic information, so it relies on the schema's full coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb '반환한다' (returns) and names the resource '전체 본문(마크다운)' (full text/markdown), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_articles or search_articles which cover listing/searching. The inclusion of backlink behavior further clarifies the exact output scope.

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?

It implicitly defines usage: use when you have a specific article ID and need the complete Markdown content. It does not explicitly tell when not to use alternatives, but the parameter requirement '글 ID로' makes the context clear. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficient.

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