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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds freshness ('current') and scope ('one public section') context, but says nothing about pagination or result limits, and the output schema handles return values.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the constraint. No wasted words.

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 covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what it returns, the scope, and where the parameter value comes from.

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 schema only types 'section' as a bare string, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying provenance ('must come from dw_sections') and cardinality ('one public section'), though it gives no format example.

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 resource (DW headlines) with a clear scope qualifier ('current', 'one public section'), so an agent knows it lists headlines rather than full articles. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from dw_news or dw_article, which is the only gap.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite: the section value must come from dw_sections, which steers the agent to the right sibling to resolve valid inputs. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over dw_news, but the context is clear.

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