rte_article

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

The description notes that only public content is returned and that paywalled portions are omitted, which is a meaningful behavioral caveat beyond a simple 'get article' promise. It also frames the request as a read operation ('Get', 'Returns') in the absence of any annotations. It does not mention rate limits or exact response fields, but the key exclusion is disclosed.

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 lean sentences front-load the action and resource, then add the scope constraint and paywall caveat. No filler or redundant context is present; each clause contributes to the agent's decision and invocation.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what to pass (canonical URL), what to expect back (metadata and body paragraphs), and a behavioral caveat (paywalled omission). It could be more complete by naming sibling tools for navigation, but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 single parameter 'url' is already documented in the schema as 'Canonical RTÉ News article URL', and the description repeats that same notion without adding new constraints or examples. Given the 100% schema description coverage, the description does not materially increase parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Get RTÉ News article content' – a specific verb and resource – and elaborates that it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical rte.ie/news article URL. This distinguishes it from sibling list-oriented tools like rte_headlines or rte_sections, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. The canonical URL requirement clarifies its scope.

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 tool is for retrieving full article content when a canonical article URL is already available. It does not state when to prefer rte_news or rte_headlines over this tool, nor does it mention alternatives for navigating to a URL. Thus the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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