get_article_results

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It discloses read-only nature (does NOT trigger new processing), tier-dependent result scope, and that Influence scores are absent. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or data freshness beyond 'buffered state'.

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?

Well structured: one-line summary, then negation, then tier behavior, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value. No redundancy or 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?

Given single parameter with 100% schema coverage, output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), and tool is a simple retrieval, the description is complete. Could mention rate limits or idempotency for extra safety, but not necessary.

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 100% (single param fully described). Description adds value by clarifying the parameter's role: 'Full URL of the article to retrieve processed results for' is redundant with schema. However, no additional semantic guidance needed as schema already clear.

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?

Verb 'fetch' plus specific resource 'already-processed, scored comments for an article URL'. Contrasts clearly with sibling analyze_comments by explaining what it does NOT do (no new processing, no Influence scores). Distinguishes from get_balance and get_health by focus on comments.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks for historical sentiment of an article already submitted previously, or to check how a discussion has evolved since the last analyze_comments call.' Also explains when NOT to use: when Influence scores are needed (use analyze_comments). Tier behavior clarifies expectations.

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