tmz_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions it returns metadata and body paragraphs, which is useful, but doesn't disclose whether the article is fetched from the live site, if there are rate limits, or if it requires any authentication. Since the operation is essentially read-only, but no annotation hints at that, the agent has to assume. This is a moderate gap.

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 one concise sentence that packs in the resource (TMZ), the action (get content), the contents (metadata and body paragraphs), and the input requirement (canonical URL). No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain return format or error handling, but given there's no output schema, a bit more could be helpful. However, the tool is straightforward enough that an agent can likely call it correctly with the current description.

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% (the only parameter 'url' is described as 'Canonical TMZ article URL'). The description adds context by specifying the URL must be for TMZ and that it's used to fetch article content, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. It aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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 it gets TMZ article content including metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source (TMZ) and the content type, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other article tools. Still, it's specific enough for an agent to infer it differs from tmz_headlines etc.

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 when to use (when needing article content) but doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives. For example, no mention that it's for a single article URL vs. searching for articles. Given the sibling list includes tmz_author, tmz_headlines, etc., a brief note on what to use instead for lists would improve it.

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