apnews_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well. It discloses the escalation to a production browser fleet when HTTP transport hits AP's edge challenge, explicitly states it does not bypass authentication or access controls, and reveals the variable billing (2 credits HTTP vs 10 credits browser rendering). This is material operational and cost context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first. Each subsequent sentence earns its place: return shape, edge-challenge escalation with the auth boundary, and cost implications. Zero filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete. It covers what the call returns, how the service behaves under an anti-bot challenge, the access boundary, and the cost range. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% — the url parameter is already documented as 'Canonical AP News article URL,' so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'public AP News article' adds only a mild hint that the URL must point to publicly accessible content, which is consistent with the schema but adds little beyond it.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('AP News article content'), and what is returned ('metadata and body paragraphs'). The 'AP News' qualifier distinguishes it from the dozens of other *_article siblings (cnn_article, abcnews_article, etc.), and from apnews_headlines/apnews_news/apnews_sections, which list articles rather than fetch a single one by URL.

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?

Usage context is implied: supply a canonical URL to retrieve a specific article's content. The 'public' qualifier and 'does not bypass authentication' hint at a boundary, but the description never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., use apnews_headlines to discover articles first) or states when-not-to-use conditions. No exclusions are given, but nothing is explicit either.

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