Read an article

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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: removal of references, navigation boxes, and infobox, plus the spoiler-limit behavior that removes later-arc sections. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by an alternative tool and usage notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, spoiler handling, and usage hints. It could mention get_page_sections explicitly for discovering section headings, but the schema does that. Overall it provides enough for an agent to invoke 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 description adds meaning for the `section` parameter by explaining it is for long articles and that '0' is the intro, going beyond the schema. It also ties section behavior to spoiler limits. However, it does not add anything about `max_chars`, and schema coverage is only 67%, leaving some burden unmet.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Readable text of an article.' It also explicitly names get_infobox as the tool to use for the infobox, which differentiates it from a key sibling. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance to use get_infobox for the infobox and to pass `section` for long articles. However, it does not contrast with other read siblings like get_chapter, get_episode, or get_arc, so the when-not-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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