timesofindia_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only public articles are returned, that metadata and body are included, and crucially, that subscription-gated stories return a permission error rather than truncated/fabricated content. This is a valuable behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention error handling for invalid URLs or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return contents; the second adds an important behavioral caveat. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively lists return fields and the key error case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; it even explains what will not happen (no fabricated content).

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 single parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema as 'Canonical Times of India article URL', and the description repeats this. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful new meaning beyond restating the schema, which meets the baseline of 3.

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), resource (article content), and specific details: returns metadata (title, author(s), dates, section, lead image) and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like timesofindia_headlines and timesofindia_news by focusing on full article retrieval, making it 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?

It implies usage when you have a canonical article URL and need full content, and notes that gated stories return an error. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives (e.g., use headlines for lists) or when not to use it, so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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