wired_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by explicitly disclosing that subscriber-only stories return a 403 error rather than fabricated or truncated content. It could go further by mentioning rate limits or output format, but it honestly communicates the most important non-obvious behavior.

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 compact and purposeful: three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core function, then adds the crucial subscriber-only distinction, and finally points to the exact detection method without padding or repetition.

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 read-by-URL tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential use case, return value, and a key exception. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out details like pagination, rate limits, the exact metadata fields returned, or whether non-canonical URLs are rejected. These gaps are minor but not trivial.

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%, with the only parameter 'url' documented as 'Canonical WIRED article URL'. The description reinforces this by repeatedly specifying 'canonical article URL', which adds meaningful context about the expected input format. There is little room for additional parameter nuance given the single-parameter 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 and resource: 'Get a WIRED article's content', and clearly defines scope ('one public WIRED article', 'canonical article URL'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like wired_headlines, wired_news, and wired_author by focusing on full article content rather than metadata, headlines, or author info.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent has a canonical WIRED article URL and needs the full article content and metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the canonical-URL requirement and subscriber-only error behavior give an agent enough context to route appropriately.

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