Read news bulletin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context: 'full text' plus 'linked resources (attachments and links)', which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what it gets back. It does not discuss pagination or size limits, but none are apparent for a single-bulletin read.

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 waste, and the primary behavior is front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does or how to handle linked resources.

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 read-only tool with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the primary return content (full text plus linked resources) and points to the correct sibling for fetching those resources. A minor gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned text or how links/attachments are represented, but this is acceptable given no output schema exists and the general behavior is clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and student) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the tool operates on 'one bulletin' and refers to 'linked resources', but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair: it returns the full text of one bulletin plus linked resources. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from wilma_list_news by focusing on a single bulletin, and names the sibling wilma_get_news_attachment for resource fetching.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to wilma_get_news_attachment for fetching linked resources, which is a clear alternative for a sub-task. However, it does not explicitly say to call this after wilma_list_news to retrieve details, though the schema's 'id from a list' strongly implies that workflow.

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