seattletimes_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the metered paywall is a client-side overlay, so anonymous requests receive the full body 'as-is.' It also clarifies the return type (metadata and body paragraphs), though it does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or non-canonical URL behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, return payload, and a relevant behavioral note about the paywall. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 single-parameter article fetcher with no output schema, the description covers the input, the return payload, and a notable behavioral quirk. It does not enumerate metadata fields or error conditions, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter as 'Canonical Seattle Times story URL' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing the need for a canonical URL. The phrase 'from a canonical story URL' mirrors the schema, providing no additional semantic detail.

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') and resource ('Seattle Times article content'), and specifies the return payload ('story metadata and body paragraphs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like seattletimes_author, seattletimes_headlines, seattletimes_news, and seattletimes_sections by focusing on article content from a canonical URL.

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 a specific article when a canonical story URL is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions for alternative use, so 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.