news_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get the full URL') but doesn't explicitly say whether it's read-only, what happens on invalid IDs, or any error handling. While 'Get' suggests retrieval, it doesn't confirm safety or edge-case behavior, which is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 declarative sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler, and every word contributes meaning. It is concise and efficiently structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the input (encoded ID) and the output (full URL) implicitly. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior or return format, but given the minimal complexity, it adequately covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% (the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Article ID from news results'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance by calling it an 'encoded ID', which hints at format expectations, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. The addition is minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('full URL for a news article') with the method ('by its encoded ID'). This differentiates it from sibling news tools like news_general, which fetch lists, and news_ticker, which fetches ticker-specific articles. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.

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: the article ID must come from 'news results', but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use when you have an article ID and need its canonical URL'). It also doesn't mention when not to use it, such as when needing full article content. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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