ninetofivemac_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and body paragraphs)Skip? Actually, it states 'Returns public 9to5Mac article metadata and body paragraphs', which is a behavioral detail, but it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or what 'metadata' includes. This is adequate but minimal for a read-only fetch tool.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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, the description adequately conveys that it returns metadata and body paragraphsais sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. However, it does not detail the structure of the response or any edge cases (e.g., non-canonical URLs), which would be expected if more complexity existed. The simplicity justifies a 4.

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 already provides 100% coverage with 'Canonical 9to5Mac article URL' as the parameter description. The tool description adds the phrase 'from a canonical article URL', which reinforces the requirement but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline 3.

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'), resource ('9to5Mac article content'), and explicitly names the output ('metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ninetofivemac_news or ninetofivemac_author, which serve different purposes.

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 by requiring a canonical article URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need article content vs. headlines or author info). No exclusions or routing guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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