Get news article

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safe-read trait, and the description merely repeats 'get.' It adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as what happens when no article is found, whether a partial read is returned, or how the article content is represented. No contradiction, but also no added transparency.

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 short sentence with no filler, the main action and object are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. For a simple single-parameter getter, this is appropriately concise and well structured.

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 tool this simple, the description is mostly complete: it states the get action, the resource, and the filter by ID, with strong schema coverage and a readOnly annotation. However, there is no output schema, so the description could have noted whether the return is null/missing on not-found or how the article body is a returned.

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 schema already fully documents the required 'id' parameter as a 'News article ID (UUID)', giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the parameter but does not add session relativity beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get one store news article by ID.' It maps well to the tool's get-by-ID nature and implies a single-resource retrieval, distinguishing it from list_blogs and mutation tools like create_blog/update_blog. The slight name/title mismatch ('blog' vs 'news article') keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, e.g. 'use list_blogs to find articles without an ID' or 'use list_blogs to browse.' An agent must infer the usage solely from the ID parameter.

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