nzherald_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this unusually well by stating that only public articles are returned and that premium URLs cause a permission error, explicitly promising not to return partial or fabricated content. This is non-obvious, valuable behavior for an agent to know before calling.

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 with no filler: the main action comes first, the output follows, and the premium limitation is stated last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains the input, what is returned, and the key error behavior. Additional return-field detail would be nice but is not necessary for an agent to select and call the tool effectively.

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%, and the single 'url' parameter is already described as a canonical NZ Herald article URL. The description adds the premium-URL condition but does not add new parameter format or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get NZ Herald article content') and states the output (metadata and body paragraphs) and input type (canonical article URL). It clearly conveys article-level retrieval, but it does not name sibling tools like nzherald_headlines or nzherald_news to make the differentiation explicit.

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 gives clear context for use: call this when you have a canonical public article URL and want the article body. It also explicitly handles a when-not case by stating that premium subscriber-only URLs return a permission error, though it does not suggest alternative NZ Herald tools for that situation.

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