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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's nature as a reference contract and its key principles (evidence-first, pro-Palestine, citations preserved), but it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., is it a text blob? a structured list?) or any side effects. Since it's a read-only reference tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical, but the return format is unspecified.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool is, its key principles, and when to use it. It could mention what the output looks like (e.g., 'returns the guidelines text') but that's a minor gap for a reference tool.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's content and purpose, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides the editorial voice contract for Asha News, specifying evidence-first, openly pro-Palestine, and citations preserved. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a reference/guideline tool rather than a content generation or search tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicitly instructs to read this before generating derived briefs, titles, or social posts, which provides clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the instruction is actionable and contextually clear.

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