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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world scope are covered. The description adds the return field set (headline, text, summary, author, date, topics, tags, link), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior when a slug is ambiguous or not found.

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?

One compact sentence with the identity of the tool front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and the usage note. The trailing 'Suited to...' clause lightly overlaps the opening clause but still earns its place as routing guidance.

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 read-only single-item getter with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus a usage cue covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Only error/not-found behavior and explicit sibling contrast are absent, which are minor for this tool shape.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The article URL or slug.' The description restates the same URL-or-slug semantics without adding format, matching, or normalization details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Get one Cryptowisser news article in full by its URL or slug') and enumerates the returned fields. The scope ('one article, in full') implicitly separates it from the list-oriented siblings (latest-news, search-news), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear usage context: 'Suited to questions about a specific Cryptowisser article or link.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right pick versus a news-list tool, but it offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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