foreignaffairs_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is a read/extraction operation returning metadata and ordered paragraphs, and it explicitly describes the failure behavior: incomplete, truncated, challenge, or contaminated upstream HTML is rejected as an upstream error. This goes well beyond a bare 'extract' statement, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or URL format edge cases.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the return-value statement and then the error-condition caveat. 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 extraction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it does, what it returns, the required input type, and the key failure mode. It does not enumerate the metadata fields returned, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly without that detail. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter `url` already describes itself as 'Canonical Foreign Affairs article URL'. The description repeats the same canonical-URL requirement but adds no new meaning about URL format, normalization, redirects, or what counts as canonical. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and a specific resource ('a Foreign Affairs article'), and states the exact return payload: public article metadata and ordered body paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like foreignaffairs_author, foreignaffairs_headlines, and foreignaffairs_topic, which operate on different entity types.

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 implies the usage condition by requiring 'a canonical Foreign Affairs article URL' as the input source, so an agent can infer it should be used when a canonical article URL is available. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related foreignaffairs_* siblings, leaving the routing decision partly implicit.

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