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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect questions are answered. The description adds the semantics of important=true (only items promoted to the «Главное» feed), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about ordering, freshness windows, or result volume.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope of the feed stated before the important flag caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 five-parameter, all-optional news query with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the non-obvious flag. It leaves the limit cap behavior and the shape of returned items implicit, which is a minor gap given how conventional a news list is.

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 60%, and the description supplies the meaning of the one undocumented high-ambiguity parameter: important=true restricts output to top stories rather than merely ranking them. city, rubric and hours are already documented in the schema, and limit remains unexplained, so it is not fully compensating.

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 names a concrete resource (последние новости КМВ и Ставрополья) and the axes of retrieval (по городу, рубрике и периоду), so an agent knows it is a filtered recency feed. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_news or get_article, so the agent must infer the split.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, even though search_news and get_article sit in the same family and overlap heavily. The only guidance is the embedded note on important=true, which is a parameter behavior rather than usage routing.

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