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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of a 'stable' public-link URL, which is a useful behavioral detail, but does not disclose any additional traits like rate limits, authentication, or return format variations. With annotations covering the safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then provides parameter guidance without any filler. It is concise, structured, and every clause earns its place, 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already defined elsewhere. The description covers the essential invocation details: what it returns and that natural names are accepted. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether at least one identifier is required, though the schema marks all parameters as optional, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases. Overall, it is nearly complete for a read-only status tool.

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%, and each parameter already includes guidance such as 'Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.' The description's statement that internal identifiers are optional adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline of 3 when schema covers parameter meaning.

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'), a clear resource ('stable public-link URL and publication state'), and the target ('Markdown Document'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_article_export_status and get_conversion_status by focusing on publication status and public link, making the purpose 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 provides clear context on parameter selection—'Accepts natural workspace names and document titles; internal routing identifiers are optional'—which tells the agent how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, though the distinction is implied by the read-only nature and specific resource.

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