france24_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 clearly states the output (metadata and body paragraphs) and the special handling of live-blog pages, which is a valuable behavioral detail. It also indicates public access. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple content-fetch tool, this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a specific behavioral note. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive (metadata and body paragraphs) and the special case of live-blog pages. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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%, so the URL parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful context: 'canonical' and 'English-edition', which helps agents understand the expected URL format and scope. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's function: 'Get France 24 article content' and specifies the resource (public France 24 English-edition article) and the input (canonical article URL). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like france24_headlines or france24_news by focusing on article content retrieval, making it 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a canonical article URL and need article metadata/body. It implies you should have a URL already, which differentiates it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like france24_headlines or france24_news, nor state exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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