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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the data is a public directory of sources with metadata, which suggests a read-only, publicly accessible operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, how many sources are returned, or how the trust metadata is structured.

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 a single compact sentence of about 10 words. It states the resource, its source, and important metadata traits without filler or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter and no nested objects, which lowers the complexity ceiling, but a lack of output schema and sparse guidance leaves the response shape and typical use case incompletely specified. The description is enough for a basic sense of purpose but not fully self-sufficient for a first-time agent.

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 input schema contains one optional 'limit' parameter with min/max constraints, but schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'limit' or clarify how the parameter affects the direction result, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool as the 'Asha News public source directory' and explains that it carries 'provenance and trust metadata,' making the resource clear and distinguishable from sibling news and search tools. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get,' so it is slightly under-specified, but the noun 'directory' strongly implies a list/gathering operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as asha_search, asha_feed, or asha_daily_brief, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives. The word 'directory' implies a query for sources, but the description does not explain when a user would need source provenance or trust metadata versus other Asha News resources.

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