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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the section-sourcing constraint but says nothing about result count, recency window for 'current,' or pagination. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the rest.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with what is returned and finishing with the input constraint. No waste.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, annotations, and full enum documentation, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the meaning of 'current' and the result shape are left unstated, which the output schema likely covers.

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 section parameter even enumerates 90+ documented slug values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the source of valid values and adds no new syntax or format detail. 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 and resource: current The Age stories scoped to one section. An agent can distinguish it from theage_article (single story), theage_news, and theage_sections (the section list). It does not explicitly contrast with theage_news, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'section must come from theage_sections,' which routes the agent to the sibling that supplies valid input. It stops short of stating when to use this over theage_news or theage_article.

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