theatlantic_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 explains the `metered` flag, clarifies that the body is never truncated due to the soft paywall, and specifies error handling for restricted-access articles. This goes beyond simple 'returns content' and covers important edge cases, though it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like rate limits or response format.

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, consisting of three sentences that are all informative. The purpose is stated first, followed by the paywall behavior and error handling. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) and the key behavioral nuance around paywalls. It could be more specific about the metadata fields, but given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the schema describes the parameter fully, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides a clear description for the `url` parameter: 'Canonical The Atlantic article URL.' The tool description reinforces this by saying 'canonical article URL' but adds little new meaning. It does not provide examples or clarify the format beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Get an Atlantic article's content.' It specifies the resource (Atlantic article), the verb (get), and the output (metadata and body paragraphs). It also distinguishes itself from other publication article tools by explicitly naming Atlantic, so an agent can identify it correctly.

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 for retrieving Atlantic article content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other publication article tools or the Atlantic author/section tools). There is no when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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