Mobile.ir news and expert reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ordered newest first, news search is capped at 100 hits, and reviews are the paged/kind-scoped side of the tool. It does not spell out pagination limits beyond the schema's per-page counts, which keeps it from a 5.

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 blocks, front-loaded with the core listing behavior, then usage examples and the follow-up tool. No filler sentences, though the phrase "passing back its `source`, `id` and (for reviews) `phone_id`" is slightly dense for the amount of information it carries.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers ordering, the 100-hit cap, the news-vs-reviews split, and the key result fields needed for follow-up. A brief note on what a result object otherwise contains would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still earns above baseline by explaining that filtering is "optionally for one phone or brand" and by tying `source`/`id`/`phone_id` to the downstream mi_article call. That cross-tool meaning is not present in 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?

"List the news and the expert reviews on Mobile.ir, newest first, optionally for one phone or brand" gives a specific verb (list), specific resource (news/reviews), scope (one phone or brand) and ordering. It also separates this tool from its closest sibling by pointing at mi_article for reading a single result.

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?

The description supplies concrete trigger phrases ("is there a review of X", "latest news about Samsung", "what is new") and names the follow-up tool mi_article with the exact fields to hand back. It stops short of saying when to prefer the sibling search tools (mi_search, mi_find, mi_used_search), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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