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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and the fact that results are pulled from a live external source. The description adds that results are 'current' and limited to a single public section, which is useful scoping context, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or freshness semantics.

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 with the resource first and the precondition second; nothing is padded or repeated. Every clause carries information relevant to calling the tool correctly.

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 annotations, a fully described single parameter, and an output schema present, the description supplies nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is disambiguation from sibling news/headline tools for the same publisher.

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 the schema itself enumerates all valid slug values, so the parameter is already well documented. The description still adds value by stating the canonical source for valid values (fortune_sections) rather than expecting the agent to trust the inline list, which is a genuine constraint beyond the schema text.

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 (Fortune headlines) with a clear scope qualifier ('one public section'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like fortune_news or fortune_article, but the section-based framing distinguishes it adequately.

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?

The clause 'section must come from fortune_sections' gives an actionable prerequisite dependency, which is real guidance. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over fortune_news, fortune_article, or fortune_sections themselves, so usage is only implied beyond the input constraint.

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