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

With readOnlyHint/idempotent already given by annotations, the description adds rich behavioral context beyond them: the status enum semantics (found/merged/not_a_story), summary_state lifecycle (published/stale/preparing), the 'Article bodies are never returned' limitation, and an AI-generated research disclaimer. This is substantially more than 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one very dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals, which is heavier than ideal for scanning. No truly wasted sentences, just tight structure could improve.

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 an output schema exists and a rich status/summary_state model, the description covers the id-source, all status branches, lifecycle states, and the no-body limitation — nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret results correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining where story_id comes from ('the value every news item carries, or an id from alphai_stories'), which the schema's generic 'story_id of a news item or story' does not.

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 — returning one story by story_id, including the summary, importance, and article list. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alphai_stories (source of ids) and alphai_article (for article bodies), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: 'not_a_story' is the normal answer for most feed items (route to alphai_article), 'merged' means call again with redirect_to, materials are opened with alphai_article. Alternatives and the conditions selecting them are all named.

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