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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds complementary context by noting it fetches the full standing documents and catalogs their categories. It also indicates safe, non-destructive behavior consistent with the annotations, providing value beyond the structured metadata.

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 fully convey purpose, content scope, and usage guidance. The document list is compact yet comprehensive, and the use-case instruction is efficiently placed in the second sentence. No wasted words or redundant references to schema details.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with a full output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what document types it returns, and when to use it. The presence of an output schema removes the need for return-value details, and the description's scope is complete for selection and invocation.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'slug' and 'lang' with descriptions. The description enhances parameter understanding by clarifying what the slug values represent (standing policy documents) and ties the document list to the publisher-vs-news use case, adding meaningful context 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 begins with a specific verb+resource ('Fetch one of Trend News Agency's own standing documents in full') and enumerates the exact document types covered. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from news-focused siblings by directing use toward publisher questions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to answer questions about the publisher rather than about the news.' While it does not name alternative sibling tools, the 'rather than the news' clause serves as an explicit when-not and effectively separates it from news-oriented tools.

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