glossary_article_get

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 discloses the resource is 'public' (an access level), but does not describe return format, error behavior for invalid slugs/URLs, or content structure. For a read tool with no annotations, this is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is appropriately concise with zero wasted words. It reads naturally and front-loads the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, 100% schema coverage, read-only nature), so the description covers the essentials. It could mention what fields the returned article contains or behavior when both slug and URL forms are given, but for a straightforward single-entity GET tool with strong schema coverage, this is reasonably complete.

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% and the description reinforces the parameter by naming both acceptable forms ('by slug or URL'). The example in the schema additionally illustrates valid values. The description adds marginal value but the schema already handles parameter meaning well.

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?

Uses specific verb (Get) + resource (EvaTeam glossary article) and states the input modality (by slug or URL). It is clear about purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling glossary_search tool beyond the read-specific framing, though 'get' vs 'search' implies retrieval-by-identifier vs lookup.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. The contrast with the sibling glossary_search is only implicit (get by exact slug/URL vs search). There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative naming, though the 'by slug or URL' phrasing implies usage when you know the identifier.

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