article_get

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing latency expectations (~4s vs ~15-30s), provider composition (Europe PMC, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Crossref, PubMed), and the fallback rule. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding distinct value (mode selection, provider behavior). No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterized lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation decision (mode and direction) well, but it does not clarify what the returned article/citation payload contains, nor does it resolve the confusing limit/sections parameter. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds some context for citation_mode and provider roles beyond the schema. However, it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely, and that parameter's schema description is inconsistent (integer type but 'sections to include' semantics), leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Get article by PMID/PMCID/DOI', and enumerates the exact identifier formats accepted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling article_search, which would be used for queries rather than known identifiers.

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 establishes the context for use (you have a known identifier) and gives concrete guidance for selecting citation_mode (fast vs full with latency and provider tradeoffs) and the auto-fallback behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives like article_search or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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