rollingstone_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context — the content is 'public' and the response includes metadata plus body paragraphs. But it stays silent on error behavior for invalid or non-canonical URLs, rate limits, and which metadata fields are actually returned, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded; the second sentence adds concrete detail about the return payload. There is minor redundancy between 'article content' and 'article metadata and body paragraphs,' but it is not filler — the first is an umbrella phrase and the second specifies it. The definition is compact and readable.

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 fetch tool the description is passable: it states the input, the scope (public), and a high-level sense of the output. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about what 'metadata' encompasses and how failures surface (bad URL, non-canonical URL, unavailable article). The core invocation is covered, but the return shape is left vague.

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 coverage is 100% — the single url parameter is already documented as 'Canonical Rolling Stone article URL.' The description's 'from a canonical article URL' restates the schema rather than adding meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No parameter-level detail is missing, but nothing new is contributed either.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Get Rolling Stone article content' — and scopes the tool to a single canonical article URL, which helps set it apart from the sibling listing tools (rollingstone_headlines, rollingstone_news, rollingstone_sections). The phrase 'article metadata and body paragraphs' clarifies what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to disambiguate, but the URL-scoped retrieval is a workable differentiator.

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 implies the usage context: use this tool when you already have a canonical Rolling Stone article URL in hand. However, it never states when not to use it, names no alternatives (e.g., rollingstone_headlines for discovering articles to fetch), and provides no exclusions such as paywalled content. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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