wsj_article

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

With no annotations provided,Skip the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral traits: the tool relies on a public web-archive snapshot,Skip and notes that WSJ serves only first paragraphs at the origin,Skip justifying the archive dependency. The 404 condition is also explicitly stated,Skip making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and return fields,Skip the second explains the archive mechanism,Skip and the third specifies the failure condition. Each sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema,Skip the description supplies the full list of return fields,Skip which is essential for an agent to interpret the response. It also covers both possible outcomes (full text vs. 404),Skip making the tool's behavior complete for a single-parameter request.

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 describes the only parameter,Skip 'url',Skip as 'Canonical WSJ article URL',Skip providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail,Skip so the schema adequately handles the semantics and the description need not repeat it.

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 immediately identifies the tool as fetching a Wall Street Journal article's content, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact return fields (title, byline, publication time, word count, body paragraphs) and clearly distinguishes it from news article tools for other outlets.

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 explains that the tool only succeeds when a full-text archive snapshot exists)Skip and explicitly states the 404 failure mode. This gives the agent clear expectations for when to call it)Skip though it does not name an alternative tool, the WSJ-specific scope makes the intended use unambiguous.

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