forbes_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 adds valuable detail about the response preserving rich body HTML, normalized paragraphs, headings, and embed metadata, plus the explicit non-circumvention of paywalls. This extends beyond the schema without contradiction.

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 fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then elaborates on output characteristics and limitations. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 aspects: what is returned (metadata, body, rich HTML), what URL types are accepted, and what limitations exist. It could mention potential failures (e.g., 404 handling) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 documents the single 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by specifying acceptable URL formats (dated /sites/ and /councils/ patterns), which is beyond the schema's generic 'Canonical HTTPS Forbes article URL'. 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Forbes article metadata and body content'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling Forbes tools like forbes_author or forbes_headlines. It also specifies the source endpoint, making the purpose 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 provides concrete usage context by naming accepted URL patterns ('/sites/<author>/...' and '/councils/<council>/...') and explicitly states a key limitation ('does not bypass login, subscription, or bot challenges'). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the accepted URL scope and limitations effectively guide when this tool is appropriate.

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