get_article

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The tool adds no behavioral disclosures beyond that, such as not-found behavior, but the output schema likely covers return expectations.

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 a single declarative sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 one-required-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and a clear source system, the description is nearly complete. It only lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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 has 100% coverage and already describes article_id as a Document360 article ID in UUID string form. The description adds no meaning beyond 'by ID', so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('article'), and the lookup key ('by ID') from Document360. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_category or search_in_project without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a Document360 article ID and need the article's content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search_in_project or get_category, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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