Read a how-to article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: refusal is identical whether the article does not exist or the user lacks read permission, which prevents information leakage. It does not mention error return format or permissions, but the security behavior is valuable and goes beyond a bare 'read' statement.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and input source, the second states a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, and the verb is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read tool with two params and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and an important error behavior. It does not describe the response format or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the input provenance is covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats that repo and slug come from search_articles, which adds slight context beyond the schema's 'as returned by search' but does not provide new meaning. No additional parameter semantics are given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one article in full'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by indicating it operates on a repository and slug returned by search_articles. This unambiguously differentiates it from search_articles (search) and list_repos (list).

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 after search_articles by specifying the inputs are what search_articles returned, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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