bleacherreport_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that Bleacher Report serves articles to anonymous readers and no article is paywalled, which signals no authentication is needed. It also states the return includes metadata and body paragraphs. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or discuss error/rate-limit behavior, but for a simple article fetch the provided context is reasonable.

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 with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the return type and a practical note about paywall/access. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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, this description communicates the essential behavior: input URL, output metadata and body paragraphs, and no paywall barrier. It does not enumerate specific metadata fields, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward article-content fetch. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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% and the only parameter 'url' already has a clear schema description ('Canonical Bleacher Report article URL'). The tool description repeats that phrase and adds no additional semantic detail about URL format, expected domains, or parameter constraints, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bleacher Report article content') and further clarifies what is returned: 'metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bleacherreport_headlines, bleacherreport_author, and other publishers' 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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you have a canonical Bleacher Report article URL and want article content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., bleacherreport_headlines for headlines), so guidance is implied rather than direct.

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