latest_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral guarantees: return the canonical revision verbatim and never rewrite facts. This goes beyond the structured hints and is consistent with them; no 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the key result ('exact full-text Undertow editorial published today') and then reinforce the canonical/verbatim guarantee. There is no filler, and every clause adds substantive meaning.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what the agent will receive: full text, evidence clock, generation mode, passing quality receipt, and canonical revision. Minor gaps exist around exact formatting or availability timing, but for a zero-parameter read operation the definition is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The schema coverage baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return behavior rather than inputs.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Undertow editorial published today'), a clear retrieval verb ('returns'), and precise scope ('exact full-text', 'canonical revision verbatim'). It clearly stands apart from the sibling tools, which appear to be access-status, liquidity, and exit-context tools.

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 when to use it: when the agent needs the authoritative, unmodified full text of today's Undertow editorial, along with its evidence clock, generation mode, and quality receipt. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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