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 freshness ('Current'), scope ('one public section' implying a single section only, and only public ones), which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and the value-source constraint both land immediately.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope and input sourcing; only minor gaps remain (e.g. list size/pagination limits) for what is otherwise a simple one-parameter read.

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 the schema already lists all documented slugs, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by stating the required provenance of the value (must come from inews_sections), which constrains how the parameter should be populated.

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+resource ('Current i headlines') scoped to 'one public section', which separates it from inews_article and inews_news. It names the sibling that supplies valid inputs, but does not explicitly contrast with inews_news, so differentiation is only partial.

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 states the precondition that 'section must come from inews_sections', effectively routing the agent through the sections tool first. It gives clear context but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative for this tool.

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