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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond that: article content is 'public,' body paragraphs are returned, and a 'paywalled flag' helps understand access. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the paywall signal is valuable behavioral detail.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the key parameter and paywall guidance efficiently.

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, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core invocation and adds the paywall caveat, which is relevant for a news article tool. It could more explicitly route the agent when no canonical URL is available.

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 schema already documents the single required 'url' parameter as a canonical Jerusalem Post article URL. The description repeats this without adding syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve and return public article details and body paragraphs.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like jerusalempost_headlines, jerusalempost_news, and jerusalempost_sections, which serve different retrieval scopes.

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 description gives an implicit usage condition ('Provide a canonical article URL') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jerusalempost_headlines or jerusalempost_news. It implies the tool is for fetching a known article URL.

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