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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds the key non-obvious behavior: this is an asynchronous job that returns a handle immediately and requires a later get_job call. That async contract is the critical trait and is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the input constraint before the retrieval step. Every sentence carries information.

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 job-starting tool with no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent that the return is a job handle and how to retrieve results. It omits what happens if both articleUrl and articleText are supplied and any mention of cost/limits, but the essential contract is complete.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema already documents articleUrl and articleText individually; the description adds the either/or relationship between them, which the schema does not state. The nested 'options' object (includeRelated, includeSources) is left unexplained, keeping this from a 5.

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 ('Start') and resource ('news-article analysis job') and enumerates the analysis dimensions (bias, entities, sentiment). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_job or youtube_transcript.

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?

Explains the input choice ('Provide either articleUrl or articleText') and the follow-up workflow ('fetch the result later with get_job'), naming the sibling tool. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites, but the async usage context is unambiguous.

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