fortune_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 does state that it returns public article metadata and body paragraphs, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, nor does it disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The lack of any destructive hints is not enough to fully inform the agent, but the description does add some context about the output.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get Fortune article content') and then details what it returns. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. It is concise and clear.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return information. It states that metadata and body paragraphs are returned, but does not detail the structure of the metadata or the format of the body paragraphs. It also does not mention error conditions or any other context needed to fully use the tool. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url' with a description 'Canonical Fortune article URL'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it uses a canonical article URL, which is already in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 that the tool retrieves Fortune article content, including metadata and body paragraphs, from a canonical URL. This distinguishes it from sibling article tools for other publications, and from fortune_author which focuses on author info. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Fortune article' make 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for Fortune articles specifically, nor does it compare to other article tools. The only implicit guidance is that it requires a canonical Fortune article URL, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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