sfgate_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the service uses proxied browser renderers, does not bypass authentication, and sets paywalled=true when only a teaser is public. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail other side effects (e.g., rate limits) or response format.

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, efficient, and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids redundancy and provides essential operational details without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains the return: 'metadata and body paragraphs' and the paywalled flag. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested structures), this covers the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly, though exact field names or pagination are not specified.

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 description coverage is 100%: the url parameter is described as 'Canonical SFGate article URL.' The description repeats this phrase, adding no new semantic depth. It doesn't clarify acceptable formats, URL variants, or what 'canonical' means beyond what the schema indicates. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter.

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's purpose: 'Get SFGate article content' and specifies it returns 'metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sfgate_news, sfgate_headlines, or sfgate_author, which serve different content types. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage context by requiring a 'canonical article URL' and mentioning that it serves 'public' content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., sfgate_news for recent articles) or when not to use it. There's no exclusion guidance beyond the implicit need for a canonical URL.

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