Get Article Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. Description adds crucial behavioral details: default format='html' for round-trip safety, markdown is lossy on specific structures (<pre> with <br>, tables with multi-<p> cells), and explicitly states markdown does not round-trip. No contradictions with 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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, format guidance. No redundant or vague wording.

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 tool complexity (4 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It explains prerequisites, format trade-offs, and warnings. No gaps remain for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value beyond schema by explaining that section_index should be obtained from get_article_outline, and providing detailed rationale for format parameter choices and limitations (round-trip safety, lossiness).

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 tool retrieves content of a single section of an article in a given locale. It uses specific verbs ('Retrieve') and resources ('content of a single section of an article'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_article_outline and update_article_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?

Explicitly advises to use get_article_outline first to discover section indexes. Provides clear when-to-use guidance for format parameter: 'html' for round-trip safety, 'markdown' only for human review, with explicit warning against round-tripping markdown content back through update_article_section.

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