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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description adds that a full Markdown body plus links, dates, and canonical URL are returned, which is useful context, but says nothing about size, rate limits, or behavior on a missing/stale slug. Adequate on top of the annotations, not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the capability front-loaded and the parameter instruction second. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers selection, input format, and return contents. The only gap is error/empty-edition behavior, which is minor given the output schema handles return shape.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single slug parameter, and it does so by giving both accepted shapes (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DD-topic) and their provenance from search_news. That adds real meaning beyond the regex pattern, which only enforces the format without explaining the topic variant's purpose.

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 and resource ('Read a published daily news edition') and enumerates the payload ('complete Markdown, curated links, dates, and canonical URL'). It is clearly separable from search_news and the other siblings (get_article, get_profile) by naming the edition-level scope.

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?

Tells the agent where the required identifier comes from: 'Use an edition slug ... from search_news', which implicitly establishes the search-then-read workflow and names the alternative sibling. It stops short of stating failure conditions or what to do when no matching edition exists, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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