get_artigo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get the full text,' implying a read operation, but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose in the first line. Parameter descriptions are direct and free of fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It lacks only minor context about potential error conditions or expected response structure, which are likely covered by the output schema.

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?

The parameter descriptions add significant value beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). They explain the slug parameter with an example URL and specify valid language codes with a default value, fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the full text of an article by slug,' specifying the verb (get), resource (article), and identifier (slug). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pensador and get_sintese by targeting a different resource type.

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 usage when needing an article's full text via slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_artigos or listar_artigos. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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