nypost_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context: the 'public' qualifier signals that this only works on non-paywalled content, and it discloses the response contents (metadata + body paragraphs). However, it stays silent on failure modes (invalid/non-canonical URLs, paywalled articles), auth requirements, and whether the call is safe/read-only. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, 18 words, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource; the second adds the return shape and input requirement. Every word earns its place, matching the standard of high-scoring concise definitions.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: input (canonical URL), output (metadata and body paragraphs), and access level (public content). The main gap is that 'metadata' is vague — it doesn't enumerate expected fields (author, date, title) — and no failure behavior is mentioned. Given the tool's simplicity, this is close to complete but leaves a couple of minor gaps an agent might hit.

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 schema already defines the url parameter as a 'Canonical New York Post article URL'. The description's 'from a canonical article URL' merely restates the schema's own wording and adds no new meaning about the parameter. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate: the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get New York Post article content') and names the output ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It clearly identifies the tool as a single-article fetcher for NY Post, which is distinct from sibling list/news tools like nypost_headlines and nypost_news. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the canonical-URL scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the key precondition for use — the agent must already possess a canonical URL rather than wanting to browse or search article lists. However, the description provides no explicit routing among siblings (nypost_headlines, nypost_news, nypost_author) and no statement about when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implied, not stated.

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