view_solution_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, or operational context needed for a tool that likely fetches detailed article data. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'article_id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format constraints. With one required parameter undocumented in both schema and description, this fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the verb 'View' and resource 'a solution article in Freshdesk', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_solution_article' or 'update_solution_article' by specifying a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_solution_articles' for bulk viewing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_solution_articles' for multiple articles or 'get_ticket' for related data. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an article ID from a list operation, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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