Get Article Initial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned payload, but says nothing about failure behavior (missing/renamed article, redirects), read-only nature, or whether wikitext can be large. Adequate but thin for a read tool with zero annotation support.

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 that front-load the core action. The explicit return-shape sentence is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and not wasteful.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The remaining gaps (error/redirect handling, size expectations) are minor rather than blocking.

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%, with both lang and article_name already documented (including the "en" default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (first/creation revision of an article) and adds "with its wikitext", which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_article_history, get_article_recent, and get_article_info. An agent can identify the exact revision scope without opening the schema.

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 phrase "first (creation) revision" implies when this tool is appropriate versus the history/recent siblings, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. Usage must be inferred from the scope wording.

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