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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is scoped to a single story and lists its sections; it does not mention the edition_unavailable failure mode or that content is a stored snapshot rather than live, both of which would be genuinely new context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no filler; the payload contents come first and the ID-hygiene constraint follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully enumerates the returned sections so the agent knows what it will get, and the single required parameter is covered in the schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as how editions or timeline truncation behave, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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%, so public_id, lang, and report_limit are all already documented, including the 'never guess it' rule. The description restates the ID provenance constraint rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one public story') and enumerates the returned content: evolving timeline, latest development, AI digest, related events. The mention of eacc_get_hot_topics as the ID source implicitly separates it from the sibling that lists stories, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: the public_id must come from eacc_get_hot_topics links.story, and IDs must never be invented or inferred. It names the upstream tool clearly but does not state when this tool should be preferred over, say, eacc_search, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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