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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: dossiers are permanent, built only for repeatedly covered entities, and counts span a 60-day window.

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 tight sentences: what the dossier is, what it returns, and when to use it, followed by the slug form. Front-loaded and 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description is nonetheless explicit about contents. Minor gap: it doesn't address the empty default on slug or ambiguous/unknown entity slugs.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's slug examples duplicate the schema examples and add no new syntax or format guidance, making this the baseline 3.

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 resource (an entity dossier) and enumerates exactly what it returns: 3-sentence status, 60-day mention/source counts, recent coverage, related entities. This clearly separates it from the story-centric siblings (get_story_detail, get_top_stories, search_stories).

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 concrete trigger phrasings ('what has SkimNews covered about X', 'what's the latest on X') and scopes them to trackable entities, which is clear context. It never says when not to use it or names a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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