Front pages for a date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results carry the page's opening text (usually top headlines) and a page_url, which is modest added value; it says nothing about result caps, pagination totals, or ordering that isn't already in the schema.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence covers result content plus the downstream handoff, all of which earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, a use case, and the follow-up tool; only minor gaps remain (no mention of pagination limits or how state filtering interacts with results).

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% (date format, state, page, per_page all documented in the schema), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format hints, defaults, or semantics beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List newspaper front pages published on a specific day'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from search_newspapers and find_newspapers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the mention of get_page_text as a downstream step gives the agent routing context.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario: '"what was the news on <date>" questions.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative or an exclusion (e.g., when to prefer search_newspapers instead), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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