summarize_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the cost ($0.001/request) and output components, clearly implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state lack of side effects or error behavior, but for a summarization tool this level of transparency is sufficient.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and include pricing and output features. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description explains core functionality and deliverables, which is important since there is no output schema. It omits clarification on the relationship between articleId and articleUrl and the translation options, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only summarization tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details, not even the articleId/articleUrl alternative or the translation feature. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AI-powered summary of a crypto news article'), and enumerates key outputs (key points, sentiment, entity extraction). It clearly distinguishes from sibling news-fetching tools, though not explicitly from batch_summarize_articles, 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies use when a single article summary is needed, but it doesn't differentiate from batch_summarize_articles or mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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