gmanews_article

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (metadata and body paragraphs) and adds genuinely useful access context ('free to read; no content is paywalled'). However, it doesn't address failure modes, URL-domain constraints, redirects, or rate limits—minor gaps for a simple read tool, but gaps nonetheless.

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 action verb is front-loaded, the return content is specified next, and the paywall note is the only slightly extraneous addition—though it earns its place as useful access context. Efficiently sized.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it retrieves, from where, and that access is unrestricted. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by naming the return contents (metadata and body paragraphs), though specific metadata fields are left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'canonical article URL' phrase reinforces the schema's 'Canonical GMA News article URL' but adds no new meaning about format or constraints. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get GMA News article content') and further clarifies the deliverable: 'article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools by naming the GMA News Online publisher, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from gmanews_headlines/gmanews_news/gmanews_sections beyond the 'article' scope.

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 usage context—call this when you possess a canonical GMA News article URL and want its content—but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. An agent can infer the trigger condition from the 'canonical article URL' phrasing, but nothing is spelled out.

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