read_articles

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral nuance by labeling 'sections' as 'lightweight' and explaining that 'get' retrieves 'full content,' which helps the agent understand performance and output characteristics without contradicting the 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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core function and uses a colon to enumerate the four modes. Each mode has a brief but meaningful explanation, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with strong annotations and a fully-described schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios and explicitly links to the article-creation workflow. It lacks details about return values, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature make this acceptable.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds a mode-oriented overview (e.g., 'search' for full-text, 'list' to browse by section or labels) that helps map parameters to modes, but it doesn't provide additional syntax beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read articles from the Zendesk Help Center (Guide).' It then details four distinct modes, making it clear this is a read tool for articles, distinguishing it from sibling write tools like create_article and update_article.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases for each mode, notably the sections mode: 'use this to discover section IDs before creating articles,' which directly ties to the sibling create_article tool. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with fetch_tickets, the article focus and write-tool siblings make the context clear.

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