smh_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds. It explains the anonymous-visitor context, the metered paywall, the three response flags (is_accessible_for_free, paywalled, is_truncated), and explicitly states that paywalls are never bypassed and body text is never fabricated. It also discloses the 400 rejection for video-only pages.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: return value, paywall behavior, ethical guarantees, and error condition. The main purpose and resource are front-loaded in the first clause, and no filler or redundant phrasing dilutes the guidance.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, how paywall-related fields behave, what is never done, and what error to expect for video-only pages. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already describes url as 'Canonical The Sydney Morning Herald article URL'. The description repeats the canonical-URL idea but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get The Sydney Morning Herald article content', then specifies exactly what is returned: public metadata and body paragraphs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smh_headlines or smh_author by scoping to a single article's 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 when the tool applies: when you have a canonical article URL and want the article's body and metadata. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like smh_headlines or smh_news, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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