birminghammail_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that only public article content is returned, that the output includes metadata and body paragraphs, and that photo-gallery URLs are rejected. It does not describe error behavior or the exact result shape, but for a simple public read-only fetch it is reasonably transparent.

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 short, dense sentences. The core action and return content are front-loaded, and the special input rejection is appended without redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input constraint, public nature, return type, and a key exclusion. It does not enumerate all metadata fields or failure modes, but an agent has enough information to select and 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?

The input schema already documents the single 'url' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by reinforcing that the URL must be canonical and by explicitly stating that photo-gallery URLs are rejected, which is a meaningful input constraint.

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: 'Get Birmingham Mail article content.' It then clarifies the return payload—metadata including the section, plus body paragraphs—from a canonical article URL, which distinguishes it from headline, section, and author siblings. This is more specific than many sibling article tools.

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 gives clear entry criteria: use it with a canonical Birmingham Mail article URL, and photo-gallery URLs are rejected. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer sibling tools such as birminghammail_headlines, birminghammail_news, or birminghammail_sections, so the when-versus-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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