stuff_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: premium articles are reported as paywalled or refused with a permission error. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention other failure modes (invalid URL, not found), but for a read-only content fetch, the paywall note is the most critical edge case. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the paywall behavior without any filler. Highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns – it does so by stating 'metadata and body paragraphs'. It also explains the input requirement and the paywall handling. For a simple one-parameter tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. The sibling list is large, but this tool is clearly scoped to Stuff articles.

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 already described as 'Canonical Stuff article URL'. The description repeats this ('from a canonical article URL') but adds no new meaning or format details. Since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Stuff article content'), and specifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. It differentiates from siblings by naming the specific publisher (Stuff) and the required input type (URL), making it unambiguous which tool to select.

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 gives clear context: it is used when you have a canonical Stuff article URL and need its content. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., stuff_author or stuff_headlines), but the name and phrasing make the use case obvious. There are no exclusions or conditions stated, but it is clear enough for most scenarios.

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