chicagotribune_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. It discloses the paywall behavior (free lead-in and 'paywalled set to true' for subscriber-only articles) and the return content (metadata and body paragraphs). It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple fetch tool this is a meaningful disclosure beyond just the action.

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 fluff. The main action is front-loaded ('Get Chicago Tribune article content'), and the paywall behavior is added as a concise second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must explain return values. It states that it returns 'article metadata and body paragraphs' and handles paywalled content. This is adequate for a simple fetch tool, though it could be more specific about the exact metadata fields (e.g., title, author). Overall, it covers the essential context an agent needs to call 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 schema already describes the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical Chicago Tribune article URL' with 100% coverage. The description repeats 'canonical article URL' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema states, such as URL format requirements or optional parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Chicago Tribune article content' and specifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chicagotribune_headlines (lists) and chicagotribune_news (news feed) by focusing on a specific article.

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 when you have a canonical article URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like chicagotribune_headlines or chicagotribune_news. There is no guidance on exclusions or comparisons, so an agent must infer from the name and description.

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