nationafrica_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses the critical paywall behavior: paywalled=true means the publisher serves only opening paragraphs, so paragraphs is a partial teaser and 'nothing is bypassed' — preventing an agent from misinterpreting partial content or attempting a paywall workaround. It also discloses the 400 error behavior for non-article URL types, which is genuinely useful operational context.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, return semantics in sentence two, and rejection behavior in sentence three. Each sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (paywall teaser behavior) appears before the less critical error-case note.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), documents the key output flag (paywalled) and its semantics, and states error behavior for invalid inputs. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret its response without additional documentation.

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% — the url parameter is already documented as 'Canonical Nation Africa article URL.' The description reinforces the canonical requirement and adds context about which URL types are rejected, but it does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Nation Africa article content.' It states exactly what is returned (article metadata and body paragraphs) and from what input (a canonical article URL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nationafrica_headlines, nationafrica_news, nationafrica_sections, and nationafrica_author that serve different resources for the same publisher.

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 intended use is implied but clear: pass a canonical article URL to retrieve article content. The description discloses a when-not via the 400 rejection of video, photo, audio, puzzle, and cartoon URLs, but it never names alternatives or explicitly states conditions for choosing this tool over sibling Nation Africa tools or other publishers' article tools.

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