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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds useful context beyond them: it returns headline items, not full bodies, and pulls from a 'public feed' (implying no auth). It still omits practical traits like pagination or freshness, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the routing alternatives. Each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact (scope, section alternative, slug discovery, article body), with no filler.

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 no parameters, an output schema covering return values, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description's remaining job is routing and scope—both fully covered. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly versus its siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify. It correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that does not exist.

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 and resource ('Fetch New York Post top stories') and scopes it precisely ('general top-story stream', not sections). It explicitly distinguishes itself from nypost_headlines (section-specific) and nypost_article (single story body), so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names all relevant alternatives: nypost_headlines for section lists, nypost_sections to discover slugs, nypost_article for a single story body. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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