get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the returned fields (title, summary, body, word count, category, language) and processing details (whitespace cleaned, markup removed). It also mentions truncation behavior via max_chars. No destructive actions are implied, so this is adequate.

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 description is concise and front-loaded. Two sentences: one states the purpose, the other lists returned fields. No wasted words, no redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return types. It covers the main return fields and the max_chars parameter behavior. It could mention error handling (e.g., invalid URL) but overall it's fairly complete for a straightforward fetch tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal context: 'url' should come from search_news/browse_latest_news, and 'max_chars' has default 8000, max 40000, min 200, and truncates cleanly. This adds some value but is not essential 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?

The description clearly states 'Fetch and return the full, cleaned text of a single SIP article.' It uses specific verbs (fetch, return) and resource (single SIP article), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_news and browse_latest_news which are for finding articles, not retrieving full content.

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 description implies usage after finding an article via search_news or browse_latest_news, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention prerequisites.

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