abcnews_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'Returns public ABC News article metadata and body paragraphs,' which implies it is a read-only operation and accessible without authentication. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects (likely none), error behavior, or limits. For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only necessary details (return content and URL formats). There is no redundancy or filler. 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations) and the description covers the critical aspects: what it returns, the input requirement, and accepted URL shapes. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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% (one 'url' parameter described as 'Canonical ABC News article URL'). The description adds valuable detail by specifying the exact URL shapes accepted ('story?id=...' and 'wireStory/...'), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent provide valid input.

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 states the tool retrieves ABC News article content, specifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs, and even details the accepted URL shapes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like abcnews_headlines (which likely list articles) and abcnews_author (which fetch author info). It is specific and not a tautology.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have a canonical ABC News article URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., abcnews_headlines for headlines) or provide exclusions. There is no misleading guidance, but no strong when/when-not context either.

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