sloanreview_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses coverage limitations (partial, may 404) and that it uses public archive snapshots, which is helpful. However, it doesn't state behavior like whether it mutates anything (clearly read-only) or details about rate limits or error responses beyond 404. It covers the key behavioral risk of 404 and the constraint of no authentication, making it adequate.

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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded, then key details, and ends with error cases. It's a few sentences but every sentence adds value: purpose, source, rationale, authentication notes, coverage limitations, and 404 behavior. No fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, why it's needed, constraints, and failure mode. It could mention return format but that's not critical. It doesn't explain how to find the canonical URL, but that's a minor gap.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, and the schema describes it as 'Canonical Sloan Review article URL'. The description doesn't add much beyond that but clarifies it's canonical, which is minimally helpful. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets MIT Sloan Management Review article content, returns metadata and full body paragraphs, and specifically from an archive.today snapshot. This distinguishes it from generic article tools, and the focus on the archive source is unique. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, though sibling names like sloanreview_articles, sloanreview_categories, and sloanreview_headlines suggest other functions.

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?

It provides context on when this tool is necessary (since standard HTML is paywalled/partial, use this tool for full content via archive) and notes that it uses no login or subscription. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like sloanreview_headlines for headlines, but the implication is clear.

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