ign_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it states what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), that only canonical https://www.ign.com/articles/<slug> URLs are accepted, and that wiki/video/hub pages return an invalid-parameter error. It omits minor details like response format or pagination, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 convey the tool's purpose, return value, and constraints with zero filler. The most identifying information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 content-fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns, what input it needs, and the error condition. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the returned metadata structure, but this is not critical for tool selection.

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 input schema already describes the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical IGN article or review URL' with 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the exact URL pattern and listing page types that cause an invalid-parameter error, aiding correct input construction.

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') and a clear resource ('IGN article or review content'), and further specifies the return payload ('metadata and body paragraphs') and the accepted URL format. It clearly targets full article content rather than list or hub pages, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like ign_news or ign_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ign_news, ign_headlines, or ign_author. It only states input restrictions (canonical URL required) without explaining the selection context. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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