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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the content is 'public' and enumerates what the response contains (metadata, dates, section, lead image, body paragraphs), giving useful behavioral context. It stops short of noting rate limits or URL canonicalization requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the sibling-routing hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 no further explanation. Purpose, target resource, and alternatives are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing in order to call this correctly.

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%, so the single `url` parameter is already documented as the canonical article URL. The description only restates 'canonical url' without adding format, validation, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, 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 (Fetch) and resource (Hollywood Reporter article), and enumerates the payload scope: metadata, dates, section, lead image, body paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from hollywoodreporter_headlines and hollywoodreporter_news, which are named as alternatives.

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: use hollywoodreporter_headlines to find stories and hollywoodreporter_news for the general feed, implying this tool is for retrieving a specific article once its URL is known. The when-not condition is effectively stated via the alternatives.

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