hindustantimes_article

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

With no annotations, the description takes the full burden. It discloses the critical behavior that subscriber-only content returns a permission error instead of a body, and clarifies only public content is returned. This is more than many simple scraper descriptions provide, covering the main failure mode and access limitation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and output are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key caveat without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only tool, the description covers input, output, and the main error condition (subscriber-only content). Without an output schema, it doesn't enumerate exact metadata fields, but 'metadata and body paragraphs' is a sufficient high-level description. The key failure mode is included, making it complete for practical use.

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%, and the schema already states 'Canonical Hindustan Times article URL'. The description repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding new syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Hindustan Times article content'), specifies the input (canonical URL) and output (metadata and body paragraphs). It is unambiguous and explicitly tied to the tool name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hindustantimes_sections or hindustantimes_headlines.

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?

Usage is implied: if you have a canonical article URL and need its content, this is the tool. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools (e.g., using headlines to discover URLs) or state when not to use it. The instruction is clear but not explicit about selection criteria.

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