mdl_articles_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note on what an article fetch returns, whether missing IDs error, or any auth/rate-limit context.

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 words is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded purpose, scope, or usage signal for the agent to act on.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden of explaining what a 'get' returns, and it fails to do so. For a simple fetch-by-ID tool this is the one place a sentence of content would have been cheap and valuable.

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 single required parameter article_id has 0% schema description coverage and accepts either a positive integer or a constrained string, yet the description says nothing about the accepted ID forms or which to prefer. With one undocumented param, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 "Articles: get" only restates the tool name (mdl_articles_get) as a fragment, giving a bare verb+resource with no scope, return content, or distinction from siblings like mdl_articles_featured or mdl_articles_like. An agent cannot tell what 'get' actually returns or how it differs from the featured-articles tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The sibling set contains multiple article-related tools (mdl_articles_featured, mdl_articles_like) and the description does nothing to route between them.

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