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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds that the content is public and free with no paywall, which is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It does not cover rate limits or failure behavior, but the output schema handles the return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the access note and the alternative. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 return shape needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, the URL requirement, free-access context, and a sibling alternative, leaving only minor gaps like edge-case URL handling.

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% and there is a single url parameter already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the parameter's meaning (canonical GMA News article URL) without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (GMA News Online article metadata and body paragraphs) plus the exact input required (canonical article URL). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling gmanews_headlines, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to gmanews_headlines for section headlines and states the required canonical article URL as the entry point. It gives clear context but does not spell out when-not to use it (e.g., non-canonical or non-article URLs).

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