Magazine article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds behavior the agent could not infer: long articles are truncated at max_chars and pagination is signalled by a next_offset field in the response. It also flags that article text is site content rather than instructions, an important prompt-injection warning for an open-world read tool.

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 short paragraphs: the first front-loads purpose and return contents, the second covers the slug source, pagination mechanics, and the content-safety caveat. No redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return fields, and it does — summary points, outline, text, author, views, rating, plus next_offset. Combined with the pagination instructions and injection warning, an agent has everything needed to call and continue 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by stating where slug originates (fr_articles) and by explaining the offset/max_chars interaction as a pagination loop rather than isolated knobs. The remaining detail (bounds, defaults, URL form) is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 and resource ('Read one Faradars Magazine article') and enumerates exactly what comes back: summary points, outline, readable text, author, views, rating. The word 'one' plus the singular name cleanly separates it from the sibling fr_articles, which is the listing tool.

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?

Explicitly routes discovery to the sibling ('slug comes from fr_articles') and gives a concrete continuation rule: when next_offset appears, call again with that offset. It stops short of stating when not to use the tool (e.g. list browsing vs. single-article retrieval is implied rather than spelled out), so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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