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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest-development-first and filler content is excluded by default. This is useful non-obvious context that the schema/annotations alone would not convey.

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 concept definition before filters and the follow-up step. No wasted text. The parenthetical Croatian gloss is a minor flourish but harmless.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly omits them. It covers concept, filtering, ordering behavior, and the next-step workflow, leaving little an agent needs to infer. Slightly short on how this tool relates to other news-listing siblings.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description touches on filtering by text, category, and period, which mirrors the schema, and echoes the default ordering. It adds little beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (stories) and goes further by defining what a 'story' actually is — a multi-day timeline of stages, with a concrete example. It explicitly routes to get_story_timeline, distinguishing that sibling. It does not, however, contrast against other listing siblings such as get_latest_news or search_news.

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 clear context for when this tool applies (tracking stories across days/weeks) and how to narrow results (text, category, period). The closing instruction 'Then call get_story_timeline with a slug' supplies concrete follow-up guidance. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool exclusion is provided.

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