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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact not in structured data: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about pagination, whether limit truncates silently, or what fields a story summary contains.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and ordering first, filtering second, sibling handoff last. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result ordering and the sibling handoff. The main gap is that with no output schema, an agent gets no hint of what a story summary contains before deciding to fetch full text with get_story.

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 coverage is 67%: query and since already carry descriptions, while limit is documented only by its type, default and 1-20 bounds. The phrase 'filter by text and date' merely restates the two already-documented parameters and adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search published news stories') plus scope ('published', 'newest first'), and explicitly separates itself from the closest sibling by directing full-text retrieval to get_story. An agent can distinguish this from get_story without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_story) and the condition that selects it ('for the full text'), and indicates that text and date filtering are the intended narrowing mechanisms. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. browsing vs targeted lookup) or how it relates to search_cases/search_media.

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