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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's value is in return behavior: body text is truncated, related entities are attached, and news items carry a corrections array ordered newest first. That is genuinely useful context, though error behavior for an unknown slug is not addressed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The corrections clause is niche but justified because there is no output schema to carry return-shape detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload (body, topics, countries, organizations, people, corrections), which is appropriate for a two-parameter read. It leaves out only edge cases such as unknown-slug behavior, a minor gap.

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 100%, with slug and the content_type enum fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'by type and slug' and implicitly links the corrections array to the 'news' type, adding slight meaning but no format or syntax 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One published item by type and slug') and enumerates the returned facets, so the agent knows this is a single-item fetch rather than a search. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling search_content, so the retrieval path is only inferable from the shape of the inputs.

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 phrase 'by type and slug' implies the caller must already hold both identifiers, which is weak usage guidance. There is no explicit when/when-not and no routing to search_content for discovery, so the agent must infer that this tool is the follow-up to a search rather than a lookup entry point.

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