News and press releases

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior on top: the exact fields returned per mode, all-words matching semantics for `query` on title or summary, and the 4000-character truncation on long item text. Truncation and filter semantics are exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mode split, then details per mode, then use-case routing; every sentence carries information. It is somewhat dense, packing field lists and limits into parenthetical clauses, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so for both modes (id, title, summary, GMT time, url; date, categories, text). For a 3-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not: `id` switches the call from list to single-item mode, and `query` is scoped to list mode with conjunctive word matching. It does not add detail on `count` beyond what the schema's 'newest first' description already states.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the latest news and press releases of the Statistical Centre of Iran, or read one item') and explicitly splits the two operating modes by the presence of `id`. The closing clause routes numeric needs to the data siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from am_inflation/am_gdp/am_search without opening any schema.

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 clear positive context ('announcements such as census news, interviews and release notes') and an explicit exclusion ('the numbers themselves are in the data tools'). It stops short of naming which sibling to call for data, so the routing is directional rather than precise, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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