Reuters news article

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It lists output fields but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether the tool performs a read-only fetch, error handling, rate limits, or any potential side effects. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key output fields in parentheses, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, the description conveys the core purpose and expected output fields. However, it lacks information about return format nuances, possible failure modes, or usage conditions, which would be helpful given no output schema and no annotations. It is minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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 sole parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema (Reuters article URL), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Reuters news articles) and the output (structured data with headline, body, author, publication date), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'scrape', so it doesn't fully meet the 5-point criterion of 'specific verb + resource + scope'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or differentiate it from other web_data_* tools, so an agent receives no usage context.

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