irishindependent_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (metadata, body paragraphs) and explicitly explains the premium article teaser behavior and the 'paywalled' flag. This is valuable context beyond basic read operations, though it does not cover authentication or rate limits, which are not critical for a public article fetcher.

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, front-loads the purpose, and includes only essential details about the return structure and paywall handling. No extraneous information; 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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (metadata fields and paragraphs) and handles the edge case of premium articles. An agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly and interpret the response.

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 describes the single 'url' parameter as 'Canonical Irish Independent article URL' with 100% coverage. The description adds the nuance of 'canonical' and clarifies that the URL is the sole input, reinforcing the schema without redundancy. This exceeds the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 ('Irish Independent article content'), and enumerates what is returned (metadata fields and body paragraphs). It distinguishes itself from sibling article tools by naming the publication and describing its specific output structure, including the paywall behavior.

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 clearly identifies the tool's scope (Irish Independent articles) and the input (canonical URL), making its intended use obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance, though the specificity of the tool name and description largely obviates the need.

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