Get Article Section

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: the default format ensures round-trip safety, markdown is lossy on specific structures (<pre> with <br>, tables with multi-<p> cells), and that markdown content should not be used with update_article_section.

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, no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by prerequisite and format instructions. Every sentence adds value.

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 retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (outline), format nuances, and usage warnings. It does not specify the return structure, but the purpose implies section content. Slightly more detail on output could push to 5.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds operational context, e.g., '0-based index' for section_index, and format behaviors (default, lossy markdown). This complements the schema effectively.

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 action ('retrieve the content') and the resource ('a single section of an article in a given locale'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_article (whole article) and get_article_outline (outline only) by specifying it retrieves a single section.

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 explicitly instructs to use get_article_outline first to discover section indexes, and provides clear guidance on when to use each format: default 'html' for round-trip safety, 'markdown' only for human review, and warns against using markdown before update_article_section.

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