indianexpress_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a basic retrieval statement by noting that premium-gated stories return a permission error instead of a truncated/paid body. This is valuable, non-obvious behavioral context that helps the agent set expectations.

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 sentences with no filler. It leads with the primary action, states the output, and then adds a crucial edge-case behavior. 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 article fetcher, the description provides sufficient context: the input type, the output (metadata and body paragraphs), and the premium-gating error. Since there is no output schema, stating the return shape is helpful. It doesn't enumerate every metadata field, but that level of detail is not necessary for a tool this simple.

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 schema already defines the 'url' parameter as a canonical article URL. The description reinforces this term but adds no new semantics (e.g., URL format, accepted variations). The baseline of 3 applies 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('The Indian Express article content'), and clarifies the output ('metadata and body paragraphs') and input ('canonical article URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like indianexpress_headlines or indianexpress_news, which cover different content types.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a canonical Indian Express article URL and need its content. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools (e.g., indianexpress_headlines, indianexpress_news) or state when not to use it. The use case is clear but the exclusion guidance is missing.

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