donanimhaber_get_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a bare numeric id is resolved against the latest listings, which is real behavioral context an agent could not guess. It omits failure behavior (what happens for an unknown id, a paywalled/removed article, or invalid URL format).

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the parameter contract sits immediately after the purpose statement. The second sentence is dense and its wrapped formatting makes it slightly harder to scan, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still enumerates the returned fields (headline, author, body, word count), which is helpful orientation rather than dead weight. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only error/not-found behavior is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says the parameter is a string, so the description supplies the entire contract: full URL, /<slug>--<id> path, or bare numeric id, including the URL pattern. This is exactly the kind of meaning the schema cannot convey.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Full text of one donanimhaber.com article'), which is clearly distinguishable from a listing or search tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (donanimhaber_latest, donanimhaber_search_news) it complements, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you already have an article reference and need the body, versus the listing/search siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative for the case where the agent has only a topic rather than an id.

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