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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the returned fields (full body, outlet, author, publication date, sentiment) and the required output behavior of linking to the original article and citing Perception. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a WHEN TO USE section, and an output citation instruction. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the first bullet, but the description remains compact and every section earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the input requirement (URL from prior search), the return payload, when to use it, and the required citation format. No essential information for invoking the tool correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, though it reinforces the URL source expectation by mentioning it comes from search_articles or media_radar. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full text of a specific source by its URL.' It also clarifies the tool's scope by listing supported content types (article, social post, transcript, filing) and explicitly distinguishes it from lighter search previews. This makes it easy for an agent to recognize the tool's unique role among siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use bullets, such as digging into a specific search result or needing full context for analysis. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'For general analysis, content previews from search_articles are usually sufficient — only use this for deep dives.' This directly routes the agent to the appropriate tool and names the alternative.

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