guardian_article

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Get' and 'Returns') and exposes a known unsupported case (live-blog timelines). It does not cover response shape, field details, or error/rate-limit behavior, but for a simple one-parameter fetch tool this is a moderate gap.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the tool's purpose, then the expected input, and closes with the key unsupported case. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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 tool with one fully-specified parameter and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. An agent can determine what the tool returns (metadata and body), what input it requires, and what it does not support. It lacks any explicit statement of output format structure, which is minor given the low overall tool complexity.

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% and the schema already fully describes 'url' as a canonical www.theguardian.com article URL. The description reinforces this but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The live-blog caveat is not a parameter constraint but a tool-level scoping note.

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'), a specific resource ('Guardian article content'), and states exactly what is returned ('public metadata and body paragraphs'), from a canonical article URL. The live-blog exclusion clarifies the boundary of what this tool handles, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling content tools.

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 usage condition clear: use it when you have a canonical theguardian.com article URL and need the article's content. It also gives a when-not via 'live-blog timelines are not supported'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like guardian_headlines or bbc_article, but the canonical URL condition is strong enough to route an agent.

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