newsletter_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the fields inspected but does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, whether it can fail, or any permission/authentication requirements.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the key scoping phrase 'one channel' is front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too terse to cover behavioral context.

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 one-parameter metadata lookup, the core call is understandable. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no explicit usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent to infer return behavior and when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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%, and the single required parameter jid is already documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so 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 identifies a specific action ('Check') and a focused resource ('one channel') with the exact fields returned (name, description, subscribers, verification). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the 'one channel' phrasing distinguishes it from list-style tools like list_newsletters.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'one channel' rather than explicitly stated. An agent can infer this is for fetching metadata about a single newsletter as opposed to listing all newsletters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over group_metadata or newsletter_follow.

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