Get a Redmine news item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those: Redmine enforces news and project visibility, and may return HTTP 401, 403, or 404. The 'never changes Redmine data' line repeats destructiveHint=false but serves as reinforcement rather than a contradiction.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads, followed by parameter notes, error behavior, and a safety statement. Each sentence earns its place. The closing 'never changes data' is slightly redundant given annotations, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, parameter constraints, error behavior, and visibility limits for a single-item read tool, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Only sibling routing is absent, a minor gap.

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 in the schema. The description adds slight value by framing news_id as a 'positive safe numeric ID' (echoing the exclusiveMinimum and MAX_SAFE_INTEGER bounds) and labeling the include associations, but it does not materially expand on 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?

'Read one visible Redmine news item from GET /news/:id.json' states a specific verb, resource, and exact endpoint. The qualifier 'one' cleanly distinguishes this single-item fetch from the sibling list tools (list_news, list_project_news), and 'for the configured API user' pins down the identity context.

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 description implies the tool is for fetching a specific known news_id, and the visibility/error discussion hints at when it may fail. However, it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over list_news or list_project_news, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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