deadline_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this is a read-only operation returning public metadata and body paragraphs, and specifies the input requirement of a canonical URL. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., what happens with non-canonical URLs, paywalled content, or invalid URLs), rate limits, or whether the returned content is truncated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get Deadline article content') and then efficiently enumerates the return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema 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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input (canonical URL), the output fields (metadata + body paragraphs), and the public nature of the data. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error/edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens with non-canonical or invalid URLs), but given the tool's simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, this is a minor omission.

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% — the single 'url' parameter is described as 'Canonical Deadline article URL' in the schema. The description adds the qualifier 'canonical' and clarifies the URL should be for a Deadline article, which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Deadline article content'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, author(s), dates, section, lead image, body paragraphs). It also specifies the input type ('canonical article URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deadline_headlines or deadline_news that list articles rather than fetch 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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching full article content from a canonical URL, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deadline_headlines, deadline_news, and deadline_sections that serve listing/discovery purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., deadline_author for author info), so it falls just short of a 5.

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