xda_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it returns metadata and body paragraphs, which is useful, but does not mention that it is read-only, what happens on invalid URLs, or any limitations. For a simple fetch operation, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get XDA article content') and includes the return type, making it efficient and scannable.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it returns and the input requirement. It does not specify the exact structure of metadata or body paragraphs, but this is often self-explanatory for article endpoints. The simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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%, and the schema already describes 'url' as 'Canonical XDA article URL'. The description repeats the same term without adding extra detail like URL format, required encoding, or relationship to other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 the tool's function: fetching XDA article content from a canonical URL and returning metadata and body paragraphs. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling xda_* tools like xda_headlines or xda_news, which handle lists or sections, by focusing on a single article.

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 usage by requiring a 'canonical article URL', but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as xda_headlines to discover URLs, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. It provides minimal guidance beyond the prerequisite.

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