get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes full HTML content, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., 404 on missing ID), authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned object beyond that detail. It is not contradictory but is minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the action, target, and a key output characteristic, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what to pass and what to expect (article details including full HTML). It could optionally mention that the full article object is returned, but 'article details' already implies that. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficient.

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 only parameter, 'id', is fully described in the schema as 'Article ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('article details by ID'), and adds a distinguishing feature: 'includes the full HTML content'. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_articles, which likely returns metadata, and from create/update/delete actions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 for retrieving full article details, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives like list_articles or get_product. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, leaving the decision to inference.

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