usatoday_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that only public metadata and body paragraphs are returned and that video, gallery, and non-article routes are unsupported. However, it does not describe behavior on invalid URLs, auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: the action and return type are front-loaded, and the unsupported routes are stated concisely. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, what URL inputs are valid, and which routes are not supported. Although there is no output schema or mention of error handling, the definition is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in the common case.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the sole 'url' parameter as a canonical USA Today article URL. The description reinforces this by mentioning canonical article URLs and excluding non-article routes, but it adds no format, example, or additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('USA Today article's content'), and deliverable ('metadata and body paragraphs'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also explicitly scopes the input to canonical article URLs and excludes video/gallery routes, which distinguishes it from broader content tools.

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 when to use the tool—when a canonical USA Today article URL is available and article content is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools like usatoday_headlines, usatoday_news, or usatoday_sections. The unsupported-routes note provides an exclusion but not a when-to-use versus alternatives guidance.

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