get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation semantically, but it does not state return format, error behavior (e.g., 404 for unknown IDs), authorization requirements, or whether the retrieved article is a draft or published version.

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 a single focused sentence, front-loads the action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally viable: it states the operation and the key. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves a gap by not specifying the shape or scope of 'article details', making the returned data unclear to the agent.

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 input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with type string and description 'Article ID', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, just restating that lookup is by ID, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get article details by ID' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('article'), and specifies the lookup key ('ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_articles. It unambiguously identifies a single-resource retrieval operation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_articles, update_article, or delete_article. The phrase 'by ID' implies usage with a known identifier, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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