get_article_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists output features (numbered paragraphs, URLs, references, images, related material), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling, but these are typical for a get tool.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core value without redundancy or extraneous details. Every word serves a purpose.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and 18 sibling tools, the description covers the key output aspects and is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool. It could mention that the URL must be a valid WOL article URL, but otherwise it is adequately complete.

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 67% (url and langwritten described; format has enum/default but no description). The description does not add meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. It focuses on output rather than parameter usage, so the agent gains no extra insight into how to use format or langwritten correctly.

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 'Get a complete WOL article' with a list of specific components (numbered paragraphs, source URLs, references, images, related material), making the tool's purpose and scope very clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article_media or get_related_content by emphasizing completeness.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar ones like get_article_media, get_related_content, or get_cross_references. The description lacks context for selection or prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid WOL URL).

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