Read a news article or review

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: content is Persian, images are stripped, long reviews can run to tens of thousands of characters, the response exposes total_chars to drive pagination, and press-release text may be unverified. It does not specify error behavior for bad ids, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then a short second paragraph covering sourcing and pagination. The closing advisory on press-release text is mildly editorial but is short and plausibly useful for an agent quoting content.

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, so the description carries the burden of hinting at the return shape, which it does via total_chars and the dropped-images note. Combined with pagination guidance and identifier sourcing, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly, though the full response shape (title, date, author) is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the source enum, phone_id conditional requirement, offset and max_chars is already documented. The description reinforces where the identifiers come from and ties offset to the total_chars field, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the text of one Mobile.ir news item, expert review or product introduction') and makes the single-item scope explicit, which cleanly separates it from the sibling listing tool mi_articles. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain ('Get source, id and phone_id from mi_articles') and tells the agent how to continue when the body is truncated ('call again with offset'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. search or comment retrieval, which belong to mi_search/mi_comments), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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