tomsguide_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 tool returns 'metadata and body paragraphs', which gives some indication of output. However, it does not disclose any limitations (e.g., only public articles, no paywalled content), error behaviors, or potential variations in response. It is a read-only operation, but without annotations, the description should be more explicit about what the caller can expect. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get') and then clarifies the return. There is no unnecessary verbiage, making it efficiently structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call it: it knows the purpose, the input URL, and a general idea of the output ('metadata and body paragraphs'). However, it does not specify what 'metadata' includes (e.g., author, date, title) or any potential quirks like pagination. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete, but a more explicit enumeration of metadata fields would push it to a 5.

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 provides a description for the 'url' parameter: 'Canonical Tom's Guide article URL', which fully covers the parameter's meaning (schema coverage 100%). The tool description adds no additional detail about the URL format, constraints, or how to obtain it. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description provides no extra semantic value, warranting the baseline score 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 action ('Get') and resource ('Tom's Guide article content'), and specifies that it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It is obvious that this tool is for fetching article content from Tom's Guide, distinguishing it from siblings like tomsguide_headlines or tomsguide_news, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is a clear, specific purpose, but not perfect because it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other article tools on other sites.

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: if you have a canonical Tom's Guide article URL and need article metadata or body paragraphs, use this tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention any sibling tools that might be more appropriate for other needs (e.g., headlines or sections). The usage context is inferred but not explicitly stated, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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