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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: only verdict-reached claims with original source links are included, every story carries source links and an oncast.fm URL, and both should be cited.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and inclusion criteria, then covers citation expectations, the get_story alternative, and the broadcast clarification. Each sentence carries distinct, useful information with no waste.

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?

Given full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation: inclusion criteria, expected source links/URL, citation requirement, and sibling routing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so limit, topic, and channel are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or filtering details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific resource — 'Latest fact-checked Oncast stories' — and defines inclusion criteria (verdict reached, original source link present). It also distinguishes the tool from get_story by directing host commentary there.

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?

It explicitly routes host-statement questions to get_story and clarifies that the tool does not start a broadcast. It does not explain when to use search_stories or list_channels, but the 'latest' framing gives clear context.

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