timesofisrael_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 the content is 'public,' implying no authentication is needed, and specifies what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs). It also discloses the accepted URL variants, including liveblog-entry pages, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded ('Get Times of Israel article content'), followed by return-value and accepted-input details. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, what input it needs, and which URL forms are accepted. It does not enumerate metadata fields or error behavior, but for a public article fetcher this is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the URL must be canonical and explicitly accepting liveblog-update page URLs. This helps an agent know which URL forms are valid, going slightly beyond the schema's simple 'Canonical Times of Israel article URL' description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Times of Israel article content.' It clearly states what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) and the input (canonical article URL). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like timesofisrael_headlines and timesofisrael_author by focusing on full article content from a specific URL.

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 for when to use the tool: when you have a canonical Times of Israel article URL and want the article's metadata and body text. It also clarifies that both regular story pages and liveblog-update pages are accepted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the URL-based scope is clear enough.

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