dailyrecord_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the returned content is 'public' (suggesting no auth needed) and that it returns metadata plus body paragraphs — useful read behavior. However, it does not address edge cases, failure modes, rate limits, or what 'metadata' specifically includes.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action, the second states the output. No wasted words, and the key constraints ('public', 'canonical', 'metadata and body paragraphs') are front-loaded.

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 fetch-by-URL tool, the description covers the input and high-level output, which is adequate. But with no output schema and no annotations, the vague 'metadata' leaves the return structure underspecified, and there is no guidance on what happens for non-canonical or invalid URLs.

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%, and the schema already defines 'url' as 'Canonical Daily Record article URL'. The description echoes 'from a canonical article URL' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Get Daily Record article content') and names the resource and return shape ('metadata and body paragraphs'). The outlet name 'Daily Record' in both tool name and description distinguishes it from the many other publishers' article tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the prerequisite for use, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like dailyrecord_headlines, dailyrecord_news, or dailyrecord_author. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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