Get Article Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does contribute genuine behavioral context by stating that a non-existent page returns "missing": true, which is not derivable from the schema. It stops there, though: no indication of read-only semantics, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the returned fields front-loaded and the missing-page edge case last. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it correctly focuses on scope plus the missing-page behavior. It covers enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it omits sibling differentiation that would make routing unambiguous.

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% (both lang and article_name are documented in the schema), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (current page metadata) and enumerates the exact fields returned (pageid, title, length, last revision id, touched timestamp), so the agent knows precisely what this fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_article_history, get_article_recent, or get_article_initial, which all touch the same resource.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many article-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the field list.

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