get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'full content' entails (e.g., text, images, formatting). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Fetch full content', 'X/Twitter article', 'from a tweet or article URL') contributes directly to understanding, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, one parameter at 0% schema coverage, and complexity around article fetching, the description is minimal but adequate for basic use, though it lacks details on behavior and usage context.

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 0%, but the description adds minimal semantics by implying the 'url' parameter accepts tweet or article URLs. However, it doesn't specify URL formats, validation rules, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides some context but doesn't fully compensate, aligning with the baseline.

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 action ('Fetch full content') and resource ('X/Twitter article'), specifying it works from 'a tweet or article URL'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tweet_details' or 'search_articles' by focusing on article content extraction rather than tweet metadata or search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tweet_details' for tweet metadata or 'search_articles' for finding articles. It mentions the input source ('tweet or article URL') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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