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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds context about optional enrichments and bundle contents, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 totaling 30 words. Front-loaded with usage guidance and a succinct list of optional features. Every word contributes meaning.

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 output schema exists, so return format is covered. The description addresses use case and optional features. The only notable gaps are the dual transcript parameter ambiguity and the unexplained 'ABC full text', but overall it is adequate.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It describes the options (full text, transcript, related content) but leaves ambiguity between include_transcript and include_transcripts (singular vs plural). It does not explicitly map each flag to its parameter name, which could confuse an agent.

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 a specific use case: retrieving archive detail for a known CamFeed item id. It mentions optional enrichments (full text, transcript, story bundle) which distinguish it from siblings like search or latest_work that do not focus on id-based retrieval.

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 opening 'Use this when a CamFeed item id is known' provides a clear condition for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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