foreignpolicy_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It proactively explains the is_gated marker and guarantees that the full body is always returned regardless of gating, which is critical non-obvious behavior. It does not cover potential failure cases or rate limits, but it discloses the key behavioral nuance about content accessibility.

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 of efficient prose. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the only essential behavioral note (is_gated). No fluff, no redundancy. Every sentence contributes to agent understanding.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the input, the output (metadata and full body paragraphs), and the notable gating behavior. There is no output schema, so this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not address edge cases like invalid URLs, but that is beyond typical expectation for such a tool.

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%: the 'url' parameter is already described as 'Canonical foreignpolicy.com article URL'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond this—it repeats 'canonical article URL' but doesn't provide format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Foreign Policy article content'), and scope ('metadata and full body paragraphs'). It also names the input type ('canonical article URL'). This uniquely identifies the tool among the many article fetchers in the sibling list, even without explicit comparative language.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., foreignaffairs_article or other article tools). It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios. While the domain is implied by the tool name, the description itself gives no usage-direction.

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