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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds materially more: a 40,000-character window per call, continuation via next_offset, and the fact that content is returned inside a fence labeled as untrusted data. It also discloses what metadata accompanies the text (date, credit, citeAs line, Facebook link for video VI Update articles), so an agent knows both the truncation model and the response shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the identifier question, then the intended use, then the return contract. No filler; even the metadata enumeration in the final sentence earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so adequately: windowing limit, continuation mechanism, untrusted-data fencing, and metadata fields. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema alone would justify a 3. The description still adds value by giving concrete id formats and by explaining that offset/next_offset produces the next window of a long item, which ties the two parameters together in a way the schema's per-field text does not.

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 ('The full text of one published item') and pins down the two accepted identifiers — an id from search or a list, with concrete format examples like 'viupdate:<slug>' and 'goodday:036', or a public URL. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from search, latest, and list_items without opening the schema.

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 ('Use for reading an article or edition before quoting or summarizing it') and points to search/latest/list_items as the source of ids, which implicitly routes the agent's workflow. It does not explicitly exclude the edition-specific siblings (get_good_day_edition, get_straight_record_edition), so the reader must infer that this is the generic path.

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