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

The description states a read-only fetch operation ('Hämtar') and even describes graceful error handling, but the annotations include destructiveHint: true. This directly contradicts the description's implied behavior, so the description fails to provide consistent transparency. Annotation Contradiction flagged.

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 compact sentences, each adding value: purpose and content, error behavior, chain context. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-id fetch, the description covers the essential content fields and error semantics, and notes temporal chain behavior. However, the contradictory annotation and lack of explicit sibling differentiation leave minor gaps, but the text itself is nearly complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a detailed description for 'id' including examples of numeric and slug formats. The description only mentions 'via dess id' without adding new semantic details, so 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?

Description opens with 'Hämtar en enskild story-bevakning från Aapl.se via dess id' – a specific verb and resource, naming the id-based lookup. It lists fetched content (title, ingress, body, member articles, chain predecessors/successors), clearly distinct from siblings like get_entry or get_podd_episode.

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?

Provides clear context: use for fetching a single story by id, with explicit note that unknown/unpublished ids yield an error result rather than a server error. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, so it's not fully differentiated from siblings.

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