bbc_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns public metadata and body paragraphs, which gives some insight into output, but it does not mention any rate limits, potential errors (e.g., if URL is not canonical), or whether content is truncated. It also doesn't clarify if the article must be currently published or if archived content is accessible. The safety profile is unclear (it's a read operation, but no annotations confirm this).

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action and resource. The second sentence adds useful constraints without redundancy. It is concise and structured well, though it could be slightly more precise about the output structure.

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 this is a simple tool with one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basics (what it does, what it returns, and a key exclusion). However, it lacks details that would help an agent handle edge cases: e.g., whether it returns the full article text or just paragraphs, what happens with non-existent URLs, and any authentication requirements. Without annotations, the description is partially complete but not fully robust.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, describing it as 'Canonical BBC News article URL'. The description reinforces 'canonical' and adds 'Live pages are not supported', which slightly extends the meaning beyond the schema by cautioning against non-canonical URLs. However, it doesn't give examples of canonical URL format or what happens with invalid URLs, so the added value is minimal.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('BBC News article content'), specifying it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. It is distinguishable from siblings like bbc_headlines (which likely lists headlines) and bbc_live (which likely deals with live pages), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The addition of 'canonical' and 'live pages are not supported' adds clarity.

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 explicitly states that it works only with canonical article URLs and that live pages are not supported, which guides when to use this tool (for static articles) and when not (e.g., live pages would be better for bbc_live). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like bbc_headlines or bbc_search, but the exclusion of live pages is a clear usage constraint.

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