Get articles

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't contradict that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., whether content is truncated, if there's rate limiting, or what happens for invalid/private article IDs). With annotations already indicating safety, the bar is lower, but still minimal added value.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with key information front-loaded. The first sentence covers purpose and format, the second adds a crucial constraint. No wasted text, though slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning the optional parameter) could improve readability for an agent.

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 there's no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the returned plain text looks like (e.g., HTML stripped? metadata included?). With 14 sibling tools and moderate complexity (2 params, no nested objects), the description is adequate but could be more self-contained by noting that article IDs come from list_articles or elaborating on the output format.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for 'article_ids' and 'max_content_chars' – it merely restates the id limit from the schema. No additional context about parameter behavior is provided.

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 a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('full text of specific articles by id'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_articles' which likely return summaries. The constraint 'as plain text' adds precision, and the 20-id limit is unique to this tool.

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 this tool is for retrieving article content after identifying articles via 'list_articles' (referenced in input schema), and the sibling context shows it's one of many article-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'mark_articles' or 'get_unread_counts', leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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