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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about return contents (provenance, source, author, topic, comment count), but does not address error behavior or authentication. This is acceptable given the annotations, so a middling score is appropriate.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence. It front-loads the action and object, then lists the included fields without any redundant or filler language.

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?

This is a simple read-only retrieval tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects. The description, schema, and annotations together provide everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly; nothing crucial is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter `id`, which is described as a stable ID returned by a list/search tool. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('news, research, analysis, or question item') scoped by ID. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list/search tools (e.g., get_latest_signals, search_signals) by its single-item-by-ID focus.

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?

The parameter description says the ID is 'returned by a list or search tool,' implying a clear two-step workflow: list/search first, then retrieve with get_signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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