提取新闻正文

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: it respects robots.txt, does not bypass logins or paywalls, and only works on registered sources or recent search result pages. This clarifies important access limitations and ethical boundaries that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, scope, and behavioral constraints with no redundant wording. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 covers the core extraction scope and ethical constraints, which is good for a simple read-only tool. However, with no output schema and no mention of max_chars behavior or response shape, an agent still faces some ambiguity about the returned content and how to control its length.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention max_chars at all and gives no guidance on how the optional parameter controls output length. The url parameter is inferable from the schema and tool name, but the only non-obvious parameter is left undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('news article body text') and narrows the scope to registered sources or recent search result pages. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/aggregation tools, which retrieve or list articles rather than extracting content from a URL.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for extracting content from already-known sources or pages found in recent search results, implying it is used after discovery via the search siblings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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