walesonline_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral specifics: it states the data is 'public' (implying no auth barrier), that 'live blogs' are supported, and that 'Photo-gallery URLs are rejected' (a concrete failure mode). This goes well beyond a generic 'get article' claim. It does not detail error behavior for malformed URLs or the exact output shape, but the disclosed traits are substantial for a single-URL read tool.

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?

Two sentences totaling about 30 words, with zero filler. The core verb and resource lead, followed by return contents, a special case, and an exclusion. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-decision information: input constraint, what is returned (metadata including section, body paragraphs), special-case support, and a rejection case. It could be more complete by hinting at the output structure (e.g., field names) or behavior on invalid/non-article URLs, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter as 'Canonical WalesOnline article URL' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the 'canonical' requirement and by clarifying what is NOT a valid input ('Photo-gallery URLs are rejected'). It also hints that the URL should point to live blogs as well as standard articles, further enriching the parameter's semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get WalesOnline article content') and then details exactly what is returned: 'article metadata (including the section) and body paragraphs.' It further distinguishes the tool by specifying the input form ('canonical article URL') and the special handling of 'live blogs' and rejection of 'Photo-gallery URLs.' This clearly separates it from sibling list/author/news tools like walesonline_headlines or walesonline_author.

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 makes the usage context explicit: the tool is for fetching content from a specific 'canonical article URL' and implies it should be used when body paragraphs and section metadata are needed. It provides a clear exclusion by stating 'Photo-gallery URLs are rejected,' guiding the agent away from unsupported URLs. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for discovering articles (e.g., walesonline_headlines), so it falls just short of a 5.

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