hl_get_wellness_article

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful context that only published articles are returned, that no personal data is involved, and that the content is not medical advice. However, it does not mention behavior on missing slugs, auth or rate limits, or the exact shape of the metadata/summary, leaving the behavioral picture slightly thin.

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?

The main action is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by two short clarifying caveats. The disclaimer is longer than strictly necessary for function calling, but it is compact and does not bury the core instruction.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema coverage on its parameter, the description is under-specified. It names the result type ('metadata and summary') but not the fields, and it never says when to use this exact lookup instead of search_knowledge or one of the other siblings. The slug requirement also conflicts with the schema showing zero required parameters, which needs clarification.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the slug parameter, but it only restates the property name ('by slug'). It does not specify slug format, case sensitivity, how an unknown slug is handled, or why the schema marks the parameter as optional even though the description implies it is required.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata and summary for a published wellness article') and identifies the lookup key ('by slug'), so the core operation is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like hl_get_axis_detail, so it stops short of full sibling-level differentiation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the listed siblings, nor any explicit exclusions or alternative tool names. The caveat that it is general wellness information and not personal advice implies a non-diagnostic use, but this is not framed as a 'use this when...' instruction.

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