Official gazette ad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing a data-quality trait the agent could not otherwise anticipate: national codes in the returned text are truncated to their first 6 digits as shown on the site. It does not describe text length, language, or pagination, but the core behavioral caveat is present.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its content scope, followed by a single caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is returned (full ad text), what topics it covers, and the redaction caveat. Minor gaps like output size or structure are not blocking for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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% and the single ad_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where the id comes from. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Full text of one official gazette ad') and enumerates the content categories it covers (board changes, capital changes, founding, liquidation), which tells an agent exactly what kind of record it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like rs_company or rs_person, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the framing 'one ad' signals a single-record lookup, and the routing hints (ad_id from rs_company recent_ads, board ad_id, or rs_person ads) live in the schema rather than the description. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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