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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: which views are restricted, which are metadata-only pending a lineage-filtered rebuild, and that availability never implies publication readiness. This goes well beyond what the annotations 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear action and then organizes the views in a scannable list. It is dense and includes relevant caveats, though the long semicolon-run style and specialized phrasing could be slightly more concise.

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 the tool's complexity, annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers view selection, restricted access, metadata-only behavior, and status attachment. It does not explicitly describe the return shape, but this is a read-only, no-output-schema tool and the key operational constraints are present.

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 schema covers status and priority with descriptions, and the tool description adds meaning to the undocumented 'view' parameter by explaining each enum value. The 'limit' parameter is not described in prose, but its schema-level minimum/maximum/default are explicit, so the description compensates adequately for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('evidence-first reporting surface'), then enumerates all seven views with their distinct meanings. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like get_signal or whats_happening, but the view list makes the tool's scope clear.

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 description gives clear context by explaining what each view is for ('newsroom' for prioritized deterministic stories, 'wire' for normalized source dossiers, etc.) and flags restricted/metadata-only views. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when/when-not comparisons, but the within-tool view guidance is strong.

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