get_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the output is converted to markdown, and force_refresh bypasses cache to fetch fresh data. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but 'Fetch' implies a read operation; still, some edge case behavior like missing articles is absent.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place, and there is no filler or repeated schema boilerplate beyond the concise parameter meanings.

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 simple single-article fetch with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and the cache behavior. It lacks explicit alternative routing or error/authentication notes, but those are not critical for this low-complexity read tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section covers all three parameters and adds real meaning: subdomain is a 'Help Center hostname,' and force_refresh 'Bypass cache and fetch fresh data.' This goes well beyond the raw schema types and titles.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single article with its full content converted to markdown.' It explicitly says 'single article,' which distinguishes it from siblings like get_articles and get_article_articles, and the markdown conversion detail adds a distinguishing behavior.

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 makes the use case clear: when you need exactly one article by ID and want its full content as markdown. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but 'single article' plus the article_id parameter gives enough context for an agent to select it over list-style siblings.

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