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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding real behavior: it rechecks publication state on every call, refuses withdrawn/unpublished/missing reports, withholds member content and private notes, and instructs the agent to retain publication/correction dates and verificationStatus labels without upgrading weaker evidence. It lacks only rate-limit or response-size guidance.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and slug provenance before constraints. Every clause carries information; the evidence-retention instruction is slightly secondary but still earns its place.

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?

With annotations and an output schema already present, the description only needs to add selection and behavior context, which it largely does, including the withheld-content boundary. The untouched locale parameter and the exact return shape are the remaining minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It conveys the slug's origin and the language constraint indirectly ('unavailable-language report is not returned'), but never explains the locale enum values (en/zh) or how the slug credibly maps to a report. Partial compensation only.

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 (Read) and resource (guest excerpts and cited source links of a published/corrected Ecomwith weekly report), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_public_weekly_reports by naming it as the source of the slug. An agent can tell exactly which report artifact this returns.

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?

Names the prerequisite explicitly ('using a slug returned by list_public_weekly_reports') and enumerates when-not conditions: withdrawn, unpublished, missing, or unavailable-language reports are not returned. Both the entry path and the failure conditions are stated rather than inferred.

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