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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 403 for Pro stories with no free content, and live blogs returning one paragraph per update. These edge cases materially affect how an agent interprets results, though return format and rate limits are not covered.

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: capability first, edge-case behavior second, routing third. No filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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 needn't be described. Combined with the 403 and live-blog notes and explicit sibling routing, the description gives an agent everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the url. The description restates that it must be a canonical article URL but adds no format, host, or path guidance beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 (public Moneycontrol article metadata and body paragraphs) plus the required input (canonical url). It explicitly contrasts itself with moneycontrol_headlines/news/author, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names three sibling tools and their roles (headlines for finding stories, news for the general feed, author for a profile), making the routing decision explicit. Both when-to-use and the alternatives are covered.

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