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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and returned one page at a time with a 1-based page index, which is useful for callers.

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 behavior, then parameter semantics, then the sibling routing hint. No filler or repetition.

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 described, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies ordering, pagination, and default semantics; it is essentially complete, with only minor room for noting known type values or pagination end conditions.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining the relationship between type (archive namespace, default category) and topic ('the slug within it') and confirming page is 1-based, adding conceptual clarity over raw field definitions.

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 ('one page of a public Foreign Policy category or tag archive'), plus scope ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from foreignpolicy_article, which it names explicitly.

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 foreignpolicy_article for article content, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not, however, mention other related siblings (e.g., foreignpolicy_headlines, foreignpolicy_projects), so alternative coverage is partial.

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