gbnews_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description necessarily carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by specifying 'public' content and requiring a 'canonical story URL', which implies access constraints. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, error cases, rate limits, or whether malformed/non-canonical URLs fail. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact sentence that leads with the action and resource, then immediately states the return value and required URL qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter article fetcher, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the resource, the return payload (metadata and body paragraphs), and the URL constraint. There is no output schema, so a slightly more explicit note about the response shape or potential errors would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for a basic call.

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 already documents the single 'url' parameter with a description ('Canonical GB News story URL'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description reuses the same 'canonical story URL' phrase without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing substantive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('GB News article content') and states the concrete output: 'metadata and body paragraphs'. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like gbnews_author, gbnews_headlines, and gbnews_news because it targets the full article itself rather than author, headline, or news-list data.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no exclusions, no conditions, and no mention of sibling tools such as gbnews_news or gbnews_headlines. The only implicit guidance is that it is for fetching article content, which is not enough for an agent choosing among the many GB News tools.

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