straitstimes_article

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a generic 'get article' claim by disclosing the paywall edge case: subscriber-only articles return only teaser paragraphs and set paywalled=true. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention error cases, rate limits, or explicit read-only guarantees.

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 at two sentences, front-loads the core action ('Get The Straits Times article content'), and each clause adds distinct information: the output shape, the URL requirement, and the paywall behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 provides a high-level return contract (metadata, body paragraphs, paywalled flag), which is adequate for a single-parameter read tool. It does not enumerate the metadata fields, but nothing essential to deciding whether and how to call the tool 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 input schema already documents the single url parameter at 100% coverage with 'Canonical The Straits Times article URL'. The description merely repeats the 'canonical article URL' constraint without adding format, validation, or example guidance, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('The Straits Times article content'), and a specific output ('metadata and body paragraphs'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like straitstimes_news and straitstimes_headlines. The 'canonical article URL' qualifier further clarifies the tool's exact 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 'from a canonical article URL' phrase implies the primary precondition, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as straitstimes_news or straitstimes_headlines. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name and siblings.

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