get_article

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes it is a safe read, so the description adds the cost model (1 token per call) and the fact that the body is length-bounded by default at 3000 chars. It does not describe truncation indicators, invalid-URI behavior, or what happens when body_len=0, so a small gap remains.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the identifier it needs, then the usage condition, then the cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs; no 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the retrieval semantics, the default body length, and the cost. It leaves the response shape only implicitly described (article with body field), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%: both article_uri and body_len (with its 0-20000 range and default) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the default 3000 and the URI provenance but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (one article) and scopes it to the URI returned by search_articles, which is the exact identifier the sibling produces. An agent can immediately tell this apart from search_articles, which returns headlines rather than full body text.

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 an explicit sequencing rule: 'Use after search_articles when you need to read the article rather than just its headline.' It names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool, plus a cost signal (1 token per call) for budget-aware planning.

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