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 meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates what is returned and discloses that login, subscription, and bot challenges are not bypassed, which sets correct expectations of failure modes.

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 verb and returned artifacts, followed by the URL constraint and then the routing advice. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps: supported URL shapes, what content is extracted, and the authentication/subscription limitation.

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% with a single well-typed url parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by specifying the accepted URL path forms (`/sites/<author>/...` and `/councils/<council>/...`), adding constraint detail that the schema's generic 'Canonical HTTPS Forbes article URL' does not convey.

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?

The description leads with a specific verb and enumerates the exact resources returned (metadata, rich body HTML, normalized paragraphs and headings, public embed details). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling content tools by naming forbes_headlines and forbes_author directly.

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?

It names the alternatives explicitly (forbes_headlines for finding stories, forbes_author for a byline profile) and constrains the supported input to dated `/sites/<author>/...` or `/councils/<council>/...` URLs. It even states the condition under which the tool fails (login/subscription/bot challenges not bypassed), which is genuine when-to-use guidance.

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