get_random_article

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions random selection and optional filtering but omits critical details: authentication requirements for content, the fact that 'type' controls output format and content availability, and what the return value (article metadata vs. full content) contains.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by separating purpose, parameters, and behavior into a more organized format. It is not overly verbose, but too brief for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits authentication prerequisites, output details, and the filter mismatch reduces completeness. A more thorough description is needed for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% with adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning, and it misidentifies one filter ('country' instead of 'topic'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters sufficiently.

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 that it randomly selects an article with optional filters, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_articles. However, it inaccurately mentions filtering by 'country' when the schema contains language, topic, and type, causing confusion about what filters are available.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_articles or get_article_content. The description does not specify the ideal use case (e.g., discovery) or exclude scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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