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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral content by disclosing that the return includes per-entity mention counts scoped to the last 7 days, a recency constraint the annotations do not convey. It still doesn't say how ambiguous names are resolved.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and return, then ends with the downstream routing instruction. Examples are inline and earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the shape of the return (Wikidata ids plus 7-day mention counts) and how to consume it. The main missing piece is disambiguation behavior when a name maps to several entities.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does partially by indicating `q` is a plain name with examples ("Tesla", "Lagos"). It does not say whether matching is fuzzy, case-sensitive, or whether multiple names can be passed.

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 concrete verb and resource: looking up Wikidata ids for a name, and adds that the result carries a 7-day mention count. That is more than a restatement of the name, though it distinguishes itself from siblings mainly by naming them as downstream consumers rather than by contrasting its own scope.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result: pass the returned id as the `entity` argument to search_news or list_stories. That establishes the context of use clearly, but there is no negative guidance (e.g. what to do when no match or multiple matches are returned).

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