Milli.gold read post

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the output shape (tables flattened to pipe-delimited lines), the language of the text (Persian), and that digits are preserved as written rather than normalized. It doesn't describe failure behavior for disallowed URLs, which is the remaining gap.

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 output transformation, then the input restriction, then a language/output caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so concretely (flattened tables, Persian text, verbatim digits). It is nearly complete for a simple 2-parameter read tool; only error handling for invalid URLs is unaddressed.

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%, with both url and max_chars fully documented including ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a marginal constraint on the url parameter (only news/mag/help milli.gold URLs), and says nothing about max_chars truncation beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the text of one post) plus a concrete output trait (tables flattened to 'a | b | c' lines). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools mg_latest_posts and mg_help_topics, which surface posts rather than their full text.

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 an explicit eligibility constraint: only milli.gold news, mag and help URLs are accepted, reinforced by the schema note that URLs come from mg_latest_posts or mg_help_topics. It doesn't state what to do when a non-matching URL is passed or point to an alternative for other content types, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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