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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, describing verified public source text, canonical URL, issuer metadata, and three categories of data it cannot return. It stops short of noting behavior on a missing/unpublished ID.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the return contents and the negative scope. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not detail return shape, and it correctly covers scope, identifier semantics, and retrieval limits. The only remaining gap is error behavior for unknown or unpublished IDs.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by specifying that the ID is the *public* release ID (not an internal or slug identifier), but gives no format, example, or failure behavior for invalid IDs.

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 ('Fetch one already-published release') plus the identifier domain ('Pressbox public release ID'), which implicitly separates it from the search/latest siblings. The exclusion of drafts further pins down the resource class.

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?

Implies the correct usage condition — you already hold a public release ID — and explicitly lists what it cannot do (drafts, private contacts, journalist lists). It does not name an alternative such as search_pressbox_news for when no ID is known, so the when-not path is left to inference.

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