Read an article

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds substantive behavior: images and videos are dropped, the body is Persian, reviews carry a structured `review` block with score out of 10, and `tags` can be reused as slugs elsewhere. This is exactly the content-shape and content-loss information an agent needs before calling.

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 opening clause is front-loaded and does the most work, and the remaining sentences are informative rather than filler. Minor deduction for the second paragraph, which is a dense run-on and even leaves a parenthesis unclosed ('or use the article id with gf_comments)').

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it describes the review sub-object fields, the tags, the removal of media, and the language of the text. For a two-parameter read tool with these annotations, nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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% and the schema already explains both `article` (id or slug) and `max_chars` (truncation with truncated=true), so the description adds little about the inputs themselves. Its extra detail about slugs and ids concerns downstream reuse of returned values rather than the parameters, 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 and resource: 'Read one Gamefa article as plain text', and immediately scopes it with 'the editors' score box when it is a review'. The singular 'one' plus the sibling names make it unambiguous versus the list/search tools.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use after gf_search_articles, gf_latest_articles or gf_popular', which tells the agent this is the follow-up step to a listing call. It does not mention gf_reviews or gf_game/gf_film as neighboring ways to get review or entity data, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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