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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the full story body is returned and that related news appears "listed under it," a modest structural detail. It says nothing about errors for unknown ids or size of the payload.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core identity of the tool is front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ("Set related to true for the related news listed under it") but still earns its place as the only behavioral detail given.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, so the bar is low. However, with no output schema, "in full" is the only hint at return shape, and the description never says what a story record contains or what happens on an invalid id, leaving the agent to discover the response structure at call time.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's note about related=true largely restates the schema's "Also list the related news." The phrase "listed under it" adds a small amount of meaning about where related items appear in the response, which is the only value beyond the 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?

"One Raydn story in full, by its id" names a specific resource (a single story), the lookup key (id), and the scope (full content), which distinguishes it from a listing or search tool. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from the sibling tools search_news and latest_news, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

The only guidance is a parameter hint ("Set related to true for the related news"), which is about the argument, not about when to choose this tool. There is no statement of when to use get_story versus search_news or latest_news, nor any prerequisite such as needing a known id first.

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