analyze_article_quality

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implys a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. It only mentions that it provides assessment and suggestions, missing details on data handling or error behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output. It is efficient and free of redundant wording, though it could be slightly more structured with separate usage notes.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format and how parameters affect results. It only offers a high-level output description ('detailed quality assessment and improvement suggestions') without specifics like whether predictions are included or the structure of the assessment.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, so the schema has 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters—it does not explain how include_predictions influences the analysis or what article_id expects beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as analyzing article quality and providing a detailed assessment with improvement suggestions. It uses a specific verb+resource construction and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on articles, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus similar analysis tools like analyze_content_quality or analyze_pin_trends, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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