get_article_page

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context by reconciling the readOnlyHint=false flag: it explains that despite reading only, it 'may create the project database.' This is a genuine side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations rather than a restatement of them.

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 tight sentence pair: purpose and use case first, alternative second, side-effect note last. Zero filler.

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 3-param read with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, and the one surprising side effect. It is essentially complete; only the return shape is unstated, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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% and all three params (run_id, uid, page) are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no param-level syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (Re-read) and resource (one page of a fetched article) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling next_wiki_article, which 'serves the pages still to extract.' An agent can distinguish this from next_wiki_article without opening either 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?

Gives a concrete use case ('to check a quote') and names the alternative (next_wiki_article for pages still to extract), making the when-to-use boundary clear. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' routing statement, but the intent is unambiguous.

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