businessstandard_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns public article metadata and body paragraphs, and importantly, that premium (subscriber-only) stories return a permission error instead of a body. This error-handling behavior is valuable context beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple fetch tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Get Business Standard article content'), and efficiently conveys scope, return type, and a key error condition. There is no redundant or filler content; every clause adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (metadata and body paragraphs) and the premium error case. For a single-parameter tool with no nested objects, this covers the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result. It might be improved by specifying the nature of the metadata, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 only parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema ('Canonical Business Standard article URL'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats 'canonical' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description does not contribute extra meaning above the schema, meriting the baseline 3.

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 states 'Get Business Standard article content' – a specific verb and resource – and further specifies that it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like businessstandard_headlines or businessstandard_news, which are about listing articles rather than fetching a single article's content.

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 implies usage context by requiring a canonical article URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as businessstandard_author or businessstandard_sections. There is no guidance on when not to use it or reference to siblings. The usage is inferable from the name and single parameter, but not explicit.

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