foreignpolicy_live_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the conversation is public and that the response includes description and video highlight metadata, which is useful. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it mention error behavior for invalid slugs. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the return contents are briefly listed. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple getter with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (list → detail) and the expected return fields. It could mention error handling or response format, but these are minor omissions for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'live' is described as a slug). The description adds valuable context by stating the slug comes from foreignpolicy-live, guiding the agent on how to obtain a valid value. This goes beyond the schema's definition and helps prevent invalid inputs.

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?

Description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (Foreign Policy Live conversation), and distinguishes from the sibling foreignpolicy_live by explicitly saying it returns ONE conversation by slug and lists the included content (description, video highlight metadata). An agent can immediately tell this is a detail endpoint versus a list endpoint.

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 clearly implies the workflow: first call foreignpolicy_live to obtain a slug, then use this tool with that slug. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the dependency on the list tool is a strong usage signal. No alternative tools are named, but the context is unambiguous.

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