economictimes_article

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: it scopes results to public articles and discloses that ETPrime-gated stories surface a permission error rather than a truncated or fabricated body. This sets an honest error contract. It omits details like invalid-URL handling and rate limits, but the key behavioral edge case is covered.

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 sentences with the action and payload enumerated up front and the edge-case disclosure following. There is minor redundancy between the opening phrase and the tool name, but no filler.

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 tool, the description is largely complete: the return payload is enumerated despite there being no output schema, and the principal failure mode (subscription gating) is disclosed. Remaining gaps, such as the shape of error responses for invalid or non-canonical URLs, are minor for this tool class.

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 url parameter is described as 'Canonical Economic Times article URL'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the canonical-URL requirement and ties it to the return payload, but adds no format, validation, or encoding details beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get Economic Times article content') and enumerates the exact return payload: metadata fields (title, author(s), published/updated dates, section, lead image) and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. The publication branding and full-content scope plainly separate it from the dozens of sibling article, headlines, and news 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 usage context is implied: call this when you hold a canonical Economic Times article URL and want its full content, rather than the list-style results produced by sibling tools like economictimes_headlines or economictimes_news. However, no sibling tool is named explicitly and there is no 'when not to use' or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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