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, yet it only says it returns full body text. It does not mention error behavior for invalid IDs, whether the article must be published, or auth requirements. The return-shape disclosure is thin even though an output schema exists.

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-formed sentence with the key qualifier ('by numeric ID') and return scope ('full body text') front-loaded. 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?

Output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should have covered the undocumented response_format parameter and basic error/auth behavior. It is minimally adequate rather than 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for article_id by specifying 'numeric ID' and the single-article constraint. However, it never mentions response_format, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in prose.

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 and resource ('Fetch a single article'), distinguishes 'single' from list/search siblings like search_articles and list_recent_articles, and names the scoping key ('by numeric ID') which further separates it from get_article_by_slug.

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?

Implicitly signals this is the direct-ID lookup path versus the slug alternative, but it never names get_article_by_slug or states when to pick one over the other. No when-not-to-use guidance is offered.

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