Central Bank news article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the body is Persian as published and must be treated as data rather than instructions, an explicit prompt-injection warning. It does not discuss truncation/continuation behavior in prose, leaving that to 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, followed by the id source and the motivation. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and flagging that attachments exist and the text is Persian. The one remaining gap is that it never mentions the default 3000-character truncation, which affects how an agent should read a long statement.

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%, so both `id` and `max_chars` are already documented, and the description only reinforces the id's origin. It says nothing about max_chars or what happens when the text is cut, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 ('Read one Central Bank news item or announcement in full') and enumerates what comes back: title, date, text and attached files. The word 'one' plus the id provenance note cleanly separates it from the list-style sibling cb_news.

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?

Tells the agent where the required id comes from ('`id` comes from cb_news or cb_liquidity'), which is the key routing decision, and motivates the call by noting statements carry numbers that titles only hint at. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. for pure listing) but the practical guidance is clear.

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