reuters_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 transparently states that only public metadata and body paragraphs are returned, and explicitly disclaims support for live blogs, video, podcast, subscriber-only, and bot-challenged responses. This gives an agent a clear picture of limitations and expected behavior, though it does not describe error handling or output format specifics.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing essential limitations. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff, no repetition beyond reinforcing the canonical requirement. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), what input is expected, and what content types are not supported. It does not specify the exact structure of the output, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Could benefit from noting potential error conditions, but overall it's sufficient.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'url' as 'Canonical Reuters article URL', and the description repeats the same phrase 'from a canonical article URL' without adding further detail (e.g., format, required structure, or examples). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Reuters article's content', and specifies the exact scope: one normal article's public metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It also differentiates from siblings by naming unsupported content types (live blogs, video, podcast, subscriber-only, bot-challenged), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other reuters_* tools.

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 defines when to use this tool: for normal Reuters articles only, and explicitly lists unsupported types (live blogs, video, podcast, subscriber-only, bot-challenged). It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusion is explicit enough for an agent to infer that other tools may handle those cases. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead' but provides strong contextual guidance.

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