Get solution article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the two content representations returned in the response, which is more than the annotations provide. It says nothing about not-found behavior or article state (draft vs published), keeping it off a 5.

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 with zero filler; the core action and return shape are front-loaded and the ID-sourcing hint follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and a single fully described parameter, the description supplies everything needed to call the tool correctly. Only edge cases such as a missing or unpublished article ID go unmentioned.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Solution article ID', so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by naming the two sibling tools that produce valid IDs, which concretely helps the agent source the value.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read a knowledge-base article by ID') and even specifies what the payload contains: full HTML in 'description', plain text in 'description_text'. It implicitly separates itself from the list/search siblings by noting the ID comes from them, so an agent can tell this is the single-article fetch rather than a listing call.

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 states where to obtain the required argument ('Use the id from search_solution_articles or get_list_of_solution_article'), which is a clear usage context with named alternatives. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., that it does not list or search), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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