Get full articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds useful content-level context (that a full body text is returned, not a summary), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when a URL cannot be mapped to an indexed article.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the lookup mechanisms and returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields. It is nearly complete, lacking only guidance on batching limits and partial-failure behavior for URLs not in the index.

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 67%, so the schema already documents uris, urls, body_chars and response_format. The description reinforces the two lookup keys but adds nothing about result_lang, include_concepts, or the practical caps (100 URIs / 20 URLs), so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema meaningfully.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (full articles) plus the two lookup keys (newsapi.ai URI from search results, or original article URL), and enumerates the payload (body text, authors, concepts, categories). This clearly separates it from newsapi_search_articles, which returns the URIs this tool consumes.

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 parenthetical '(from search results)' establishes the intended workflow: run newsapi_search_articles first, then hydrate results here. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the sibling alternatives (e.g. when to prefer raw_request), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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