cnbc_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 only public content is returned and that account-gated content is not bypassed, which is a meaningful limitation. It also specifies the output type (metadata and body paragraphs). However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with invalid or non-canonical URLs, so transparency is partial.

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 three sentences with zero waste: it states the purpose, the input requirement, and a key limitation. It is front-loaded with the core function, followed by the input and a constraint. No extraneous detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable level of completeness: it explains what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), what input is required (canonical dated URL), and a notable limitation (no bypass of account-gated content). It does not describe error handling or response format details, but for a simple fetch operation this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100% for the 'url' parameter, which already describes it as 'Canonical cnbc.com article URL'. The tool description adds the 'dated' requirement, which is not in the schema, providing additional constraint and meaning beyond the structured field. This justifies a score above the baseline of 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 the tool returns CNBC article metadata and server-rendered body paragraphs for a single article URL. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('CNBC article content'), and the input requirement ('canonical dated cnbc.com article URL') is explicit. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the tool name and scope make it distinct from the many other 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 implies usage when you have a specific CNBC article URL, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cnbc_headlines or cnbc_categories. It gives clear context (provide a URL) but no exclusions or explicit routing to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection.

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