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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does solid work: it warns that body may be null for pending/blocked/failed statuses, that excerpt is not full text, and that HTML content is external data to sanitize before display (a useful prompt-injection caution). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the null/truncation caveat and the safety note. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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?

Though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (text/HTML, detail_status, content_scope) and the null-body condition, which is exactly what an agent needs to handle the response correctly. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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% for the single news_id parameter, including its pattern and origin, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (Get) and resource (news text/HTML, detail_status, content_scope) keyed by article ID. It is distinguishable from the get_company_news list sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly as the list/detail counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied — fetch the full article for a given ID — and the routing hint ('ID from get_company_news') lives in the schema rather than the description. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or named alternative in the description itself.

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