indiatoday_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavior: subscriber-only magazine stories return a teaser with paywalled set to true, which is important for interpreting results. It also mentions that it returns 'metadata and body paragraphs,' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (which is safe to assume but unstated). It does not mention how missing URLs, non-canonical URLs, or non-existent stories are handled. With no annotations, this is only partially transparent; there is no contradiction, but more could be said about side effects (none) or error behavior.

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: the first states the primary purpose and return content, and the second covers the paywall exception. It is concise and the most important pieces of information (what it returns and the exception) are front-loaded. It is not padded with filler. The only minor waste is the repetition of 'canonical story URL' and 'public India Today article metadata and body paragraphs', but these are not rambling. This is efficient writing.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool fetches, the input URL format, and the paywall behavior. It does not describe the full list of metadata fields returned (e.g., title, author, publish date) but that is not required if an output schema exists (which it does not). A more complete description might mention whether the tool returns errors for invalid URLs, but given the low complexity and no output schema, this is still quite complete. It could be a 5 if it detailed the return structure, but 4 is fair.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'url' with a description 'Canonical India Today story URL', which is clear. The description adds 'from a canonical story URL' and emphasizes 'canonical' again, reinforcing that the URL must be the canonical one, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema says. Since schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, the description adds marginal value but does not mislead, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get India Today article content') and specifies the resource (India Today article) and key detail that it takes a canonical story URL. It distinguishes from siblings like indiatoday_headlines because this tool fetches full article content, not just headlines or news lists. However, it does not name sibling tools that retrieve articles from other outlets, but that is not necessary since the tool name itself identifies the outlet.

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: it is used when an agent needs article content from a canonical India Today URL. It does not mention when not to use it, such as when a headline-only summary would suffice or when the user needs a list of articles (for that, use indiatoday_headlines or indiatoday_news). It also does not explain prerequisites like obtaining the URL first, which is obvious. Specific guidance on when to use this over a search or headline tool is absent, so a 3 is appropriate.

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