euronews_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (metadata and body paragraphs) and the constraint of 'public' and 'English-edition', which adds context. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or whether any authorization is needed beyond the implied public nature. It is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on output and input constraint. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, what it returns, and the required input format. It specifies public and English-edition limitations, which are important. It does not detail the structure of metadata or paragraphs, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable. It is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 Euronews article URL' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the qualifier 'English-edition', which is not in the schema, providing additional meaning about acceptable URLs. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'Euronews article content', and specifies what it returns (metadata and body paragraphs). It is distinct from sibling tools like euronews_headlines or euronews_author by focusing on a single article's full content. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like euronews_headlines or euronews_news. It implies the need for a canonical URL but gives no guidance on when to select this vs. other article tools. There are no explicit when-not conditions or alternative suggestions.

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