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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds the stories API scope requirement as extra context. It repeats the language fallback already present in the lang parameter schema and does not disclose error or not-found behavior, keeping this at a mid score.

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 compact: three short sentences front-load the purpose and keep the API-scope prerequisite immediately visible. The first clause is close to title duplication, but there is no padding and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, while the description adds the auth requirement. Still, the required ckey parameter is left unexplained alert, and there is no guidance for choosing this over sibling tools, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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 only 50%, with ckey having no description, and the description never explains what ckey represents. The only parameter-related sentence about English fallback duplicates what the lang schema already states, so the required parameter remains semantically undocumented.

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 names the resource (Story detail) and its content areas (members, timeline, framing), making the object and scope identifiable. It lacks an explicit verb, with 'get' only appearing in the tool name, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like stories_members.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the stories API scope') and a language-fallback note, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over stories_members or stories_list; the use case is only implied by the phrase 'Story detail'.

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