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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description builds on that by explaining that the result is editorial judgement rather than a recency feed, and that each language edition has its own front page. It also indicates metadata-only output, leaving the output schema to detail the structure. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss pagination or full block details, which are covered by parameters.

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 brief and front-loaded with actionable purpose, then usage, then metadata note, all in two sentences. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's simple purpose, full parameter documentation in the schema, and an output schema present, the description fully covers the context. It explains the editorial filtering, language editions, and follow-up action, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the description makes no additional parameter explanations beyond what is in the schema. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description's focus is on purpose rather than parameter syntax, which is acceptable.

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 the tool returns the current front page grouped by editorial blocks, distinguishing it from recency-based tools. It specifies the resource (Trend News Agency front page) and the verb (get/report).

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 explicitly states when to use it (e.g., 'what is the news from Azerbaijan today') and what it is not (not recency-based), and even points to an alternative follow-up tool (trendaz_article_get). This provides clear usage guidance and differentiation from siblings like trendaz_news_list.

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