globeandmail_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the key failure mode: metered paywall stories return a 403 permission error rather than a truncated or fabricated body, and points to the endpoint markdown for detection. It could add more detail about return structure or rate limits, but the critical behavioral caveat is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the operation, the second defines the output scope, and the third discloses the paywall failure mode. Every sentence contributes distinct information and the most important scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential bases: what is returned, that it requires a canonical URL, and how paywalled content behaves. It does not enumerate the metadata fields that will be returned, which is a minor gap, and delegates the exact 403 detection method to external markdown rather than including it inline.

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%, with the schema already describing the url parameter as 'Canonical Globe and Mail article URL'. The description repeats this as 'canonical article URL' without adding new format, validation, or example information, so it provides no meaningful value beyond the schema baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a Globe and Mail article's content') and immediately clarifies the exact scope: one public article's metadata and full body paragraphs from a canonical URL. This distinguishes it from sibling list and section tools without requiring any schema inspection.

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 makes the correct invocation context explicit: you need a canonical article URL, and it fetches a single public article. It also warns that paywalled staff-bylined stories will fail with a 403, which helps an agent decide whether to attempt the call. It does not explicitly name alternatives like globeandmail_headlines or globeandmail_news, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statement.

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