aljazeera_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that only public Al Jazeera articles are supported and that the result contains metadata and body paragraphs, but it does not mention failure modes, redirects, auth expectations, or any restrictions beyond 'public.'

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds genuinely useful detail about the output and the required input format without redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only article fetcher with a fully described schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input requirement and the output contents. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description only vaguely references 'metadata' without enumerating the fields, but this does not prevent an agent from selecting and invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the url parameter as the 'Canonical www.aljazeera.com article URL.' The description repeats the canonical/URL concept and adds 'article' context, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 names the action ('Get') and the resource ('Al Jazeera article content'), and it specifies the input as a 'canonical article URL', which distinguishes it from tools that list headlines or fetch author pages. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like aljazeera_headlines, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the correct use case: call this when you already have a specific Al Jazeera article URL and want its content. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to use for discovering or listing articles.

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