telegraph_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns 'public' article content, implying it does not handle paywalled or non-public pages, and it explicitly lists the return items (metadata and body paragraphs). However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable. The description adds some transparency beyond just the tool name.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and output without unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the additional detail about return type is appended. While it could be expanded with usage guidance, it is efficiently structured for its length.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it names the exact input type (canonical article URL) and the high-level output (metadata and body paragraphs). It also clarifies that only public content is returned. No obvious missing information that would prevent an agent from making a correct call is apparent.

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 schema already fully describes the 'url' parameter with the same phrase 'Canonical The Telegraph article URL', and the tool description repeats this. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no new semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'The Telegraph article content', and specifies exactly what it returns: metadata and body paragraphs. It is distinct from sibling tools like telegraph_headlines or telegraph_author, which serve different purposes, and the mention of 'canonical article URL' clarifies the input. This is 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when a specific article URL is available, nor does it contrast with list-style tools like telegraph_headlines. The purpose is implicit but not stated, so an agent has to infer usage from naming and context.

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