Read Article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing safety. The verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'full text' indicates the scope of what will be returned. It does not overpromise details like rate limits or error behavior, but for a straightforward read operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's primary action and object, and the second defines the accepted input formats. All information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and sibling names that make the alternatives obvious, the description is complete. An agent has both the purpose and the exact accepted input format needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema provides no description for url_or_slug, the tool description fully compensates by explaining that it accepts either a full URL or a bare slug and gives a concrete example. This is exactly the semantic content an agent needs to format the single required parameter correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the full text of one Prothom Alo article.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_news, latest_news, and list_sections: it targets one existing article rather than discovering or listing content.

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 states the clear use case: retrieve full text of a specific article, and the input forms (URL or slug) imply you must already have an identifier rather than needing to search. It does not explicitly list exclusions or recommend alternatives, but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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