vox_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public' content, implying read-only access and no authentication, and specifies the return type (metadata and body paragraphs). However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid or non-canonical URLs), rate limits, or whether only certain types of articles are accessible. The transparency is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds the return content. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. No extraneous details or filler.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it retrieves (metadata and body paragraphs) and the input type (canonical URL). It also specifies 'public' content, which sets expectations about access. While it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, the tool is simple enough that this description covers the core usage needs. The absence of an output schema means the description's mention of 'metadata and body paragraphs' is helpful for understanding the return.

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 already provides a 100% description for the only parameter (url) as 'Canonical Vox article URL'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the phrase 'canonical article URL' without elaborating on format, examples, or constraints. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Vox article content'), and the scope ('from a canonical article URL'). It also specifies the return payload ('metadata and body paragraphs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vox_headlines or vox_news, which focus on headlines or sections. The name itself aligns with the description, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the tool is for retrieving full Vox article content, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools (e.g., vox_headlines, vox_news, or article tools for other publishers). There is no 'when to use vs. not use' guidance, though the name and scope make it reasonably inferable. Without explicit exclusions or alternatives, the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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