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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: premium subscriber-only stories return a permission error rather than an empty body, which is a meaningful disclosure an agent needs to handle outcomes. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the paywall behavior note is valuable.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the error-behavior caveat and the sibling pointer. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers the required input, its canonical constraint, paywall error behavior, and the discovery path. Complete enough for a single-param read tool.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is high. The description reinforces that the URL must be a canonical Business Standard article URL, adding scope meaning beyond the schema label.

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 (Fetch) and resource (Business Standard article metadata and body paragraphs) and the input form (canonical URL). This is clearly distinguished from sibling businessstandard_headlines/news/sections which list rather than retrieve a single article's content.

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 user to businessstandard_headlines for discovery, giving clear context for how to obtain the required URL. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., for other Business Standard content types), but the guidance is clear.

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