philstar_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 content is public, returns metadata and body paragraphs, and that no paywall flag is needed. However, it does not mention error behavior for invalid URLs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive, warranting a middle score.

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 efficient: three short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and a relevant paywall clarification. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 read tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential input and output expectations (metadata and body paragraphs). It could detail what 'metadata' includes, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, the current description is sufficiently complete in context.

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 describes the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical Philstar article URL' (100% coverage). The description repeats this by stating 'from a canonical article URL' without adding new details like URL format or how to obtain a canonical URL. As coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 clearly states the tool fetches Philstar article content, returning metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like philstar_headlines or philstar_news, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 implicitly indicates usage when a canonical article URL is available, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The note about no paywall flag is tangential to usage context. More explicit guidance on choosing this over philstar_headlines or philstar_author would improve the score.

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