foxnews_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 states that it returns public article metadata and body paragraphs, and explicitly notes that login, subscription, or other access controls are not bypassed. This is transparent about the read-only nature and limitations, though it does not discuss rate limits, errors, or response format details.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and returns, the second clarifies a key limitation. The description is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it retrieves, the input requirement, and the access-control limitation. It could go slightly deeper on return structure or edge cases, but for a straightforward article fetcher it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already documents the single `url` parameter with 100% coverage, including its description 'Canonical Fox News article URL'. The tool description repeats 'canonical article URL' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as fetching Fox News article content, and specifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like foxnews_headlines or foxnews_search, and from article tools of other outlets, by naming the exact resource and operation.

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 tool should be used when you have a canonical Fox News article URL and need its content, and it explicitly states it does not bypass access controls. However, it does not name any alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the right context from the sibling list.

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