get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get full article details' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), what specific fields are returned, error behavior, or any permissions/rate limits. The phrase 'full article details' is vague and does not convey meaningful behavioral 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the core function without wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify what 'full article details' includes (e.g., content, metadata, timestamps) or what the return structure looks like. There is also no context about when to prefer this over sibling list/search tools. For a tool with this level of complexity, the description leaves notable gaps.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' (Article ID (UUID)). The description's 'by ID' matches the schema but adds no extra meaning. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get full article details by ID' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (article details), and scope (by ID), which distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_articles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like article_get, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for single-article retrieval among several similarly named tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_articles or article_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the 'by ID' scope, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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