get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns clean markdown text and that lang defaults to the OS locale language, which adds meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a read-only fetch tool the key behaviors are covered.

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, each earning its place: purpose and return type, usage context, and parameter behavior. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and is free of redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names supported content types, explains the return format, gives usage context relative to search_gospel_library, and documents language handling. No critical gaps remain for selecting and invoking this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic clarity by explaining that the URL targets articles/talks/manual chapters/policy pages and explicitly links lang to language selection with an example. This goes slightly beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('full content of a specific Gospel Library article, talk, manual chapter, or policy page by URL'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like search_gospel_library (search) and get_scripture (scripture). It also names the return format ('clean markdown text'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this after search_gospel_library to read the full content of an article.' It gives clear context for language selection but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like browse_category or get_scripture.

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