get_impresso_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: the call is metered against a monthly quota, and articles with unreadable rights are refused with an explanation rather than returned empty. This adds useful context beyond the basic action, though it doesn't cover all possible side effects.

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 concise, using only three sentences. It front-loads the core action, then adds usage guidance and metering/error behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage timing, cost implications, and error behavior. The output schema provides return-value details, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. Sibling tool context is also effectively used.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'reference' fully, including its source from 'search_impresso'. The description doesn't add additional parameter-level details, but given 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool's action: downloading an article's transcript and returning a cached file path. It uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('article's transcript'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_impresso' by focusing on full-text retrieval rather than search fragments.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool: 'Use only when the search fragments are not enough and the whole article has to be read or grepped.' It also contrasts the metered nature of transcripts against unmetered searches, giving clear cost-based usage guidance.

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