guardian_get_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: no auth requirement for api_key, no note on what happens with an invalid or missing ID, no return-shape hint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing superfluous, and the key constraint (by ID) is placed where it reads first.

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 single-record read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation but leaves auth (api_key) and failure/lookup-miss behavior unexplained. Adequate, but with clear gaps for an agent that has never called a Guardian endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only restates that the ID identifies an article. The second parameter, api_key, is never mentioned, and no format or example for article_id is given.

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?

'Get a specific Guardian article by ID' states a concrete verb and resource, and 'by ID' implicitly contrasts with the sibling guardian_search_articles. It does not name that sibling or state a scope boundary explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this rather than guardian_search_articles, which is the obvious alternative when the agent has a query instead of an ID. The usage context is only implied by the 'by ID' phrasing.

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