getNews

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the operation is read-only, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context at all – it does not mention that it retrieves a single item, that format can be json or xml, or that the include parameter controls additional content. With zero behavioral disclosure in the description, and only the annotation covering safety, the description fails to convey anything about side effects, prerequisites, or response characteristics.

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?

The description is extremely short ('Show news'), which at first seems concise, but it is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It provides no actionable information, front-loaded or otherwise. A concise description should pack useful details into a few sentences; this one offers nothing beyond a generic verb and resource name, so it fails the structure requirement.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (nested pathParams and queryParams, enums, multiple sibling tools for news), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a news item is, how newsId is used, what the response looks like, or how this differs from getNewsList and getNewsListByProject. The agent has no way to correctly select and invoke this tool without additional external knowledge.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the pathParams or queryParams. The schema itself defines required fields (format, newsId) and enums (json/xml, attachments/comments), but the description adds no meaning or context to these parameters. In this low-coverage scenario, the description was supposed to compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics from names and enums alone.

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 'Show news' is vague and fails to distinguish this tool from its many news-related siblings such as getNewsList, getNewsListByProject, and createNews. It does not state that this fetches a single news item by ID, nor does it specify what is returned. It only identifies the resource domain (news) without clarifying the exact operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the alternative news tools. The description does not mention conditions like needing a specific newsId, format selection, or when to prefer getNewsList over getNews. An agent is left to infer usage from the schema alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling list.

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