pcgamer_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful read-operation context by stating the content is 'public' and that the tool returns 'metadata and body paragraphs' from a 'canonical' URL. However, it does not mention failure behavior, output format, or any access limitations beyond publicness.

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 short sentences with no filler. The tool's purpose and return content are front-loaded, and the URL requirement appears in the second sentence without redundancy beyond the schema-driven term 'canonical'.

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, the description is functionally complete: it states the input type, the scope of the content, and the returned components. It does not enumerate exact metadata fields, but that level of detail is not necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'url' parameter as a canonical PC Gamer article URL. The description repeats the 'canonical article URL' constraint but adds no additional meaning or formatting guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get') with a precise resource ('PC Gamer article content') and names the delimited output ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcgamer_headlines, pcgamer_news, and pcgamer_sections by signaling that this tool returns full article content, not aggregated listings.

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 indicates the tool is for retrieving article-level content and requires a 'canonical article URL', which is a concrete usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context of sibling tools like pcgamer_headlines and pcgamer_news makes the intended scope reasonably clear.

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