theage_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the paywall reporting fields (is_accessible_for_free, paywalled, is_truncated), explicitly states that paywalls are never bypassed and text is never fabricated, and documents 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and subsequent sentences each add a distinct, valuable behavioral detail (paywall reporting, no-bypass guarantee, error behavior). No sentence is wasted.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers what is returned, key response flags, the paywall caveat, and a documented error case. It stops short of fully describing the returned metadata structure, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single url parameter as 'Canonical The Age article URL.' The description repeats this canonical requirement and adds the 'anonymous visitor' framing, but provides little additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 Age article content.' It clearly states what is returned (public metadata and body paragraphs) and from what input (canonical article URL), which distinguishes it from the many sibling publisher-specific article tools even without naming them.

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 usage context clearly: it is for The Age articles and requires a canonical URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like smh_article or other publisher article tools, but the source-specific phrasing and the rejected video-only case give an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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