Get HP news detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes previous/next links, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not describe navigation pagination behavior, error cases, or what constitutes a 'number' boundary, leaving some gaps for a fetch operation.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and appends a useful detail about previous/next links. Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The inclusion of the previous/next links detail is valuable context. It could note error behavior for nonexistent newsnumbers, but this is minor for a simple retrieval tool.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of 'newsnumber' ('The news number (id) to fetch') and an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description echoes the parameter concept by saying 'by its number' but adds little beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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+resource ('Fetch a single news article by its number') and adds useful scope details (includes previous/next links). This clearly distinguishes from the sibling tools since 'get_news_detail' vs 'get_news' implies single-item vs list retrieval, and 'get_company' is a different resource entirely.

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 usage by identifying it's for fetching a single article by number, which differentiates it from the sibling list tool 'get_news'. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance.

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