lookup_newspaper_id

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conversion behavior but says nothing about error handling, read-only guarantees, or side effects. The description is a straightforward action statement without additional behavioral context, which is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is only two sentences (plus an args line) and is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. The examples are concise and illustrative.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description fully explains the input format and bidirectional purpose, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly defining the parameter: 'A data.kb.se package ID, or a URL/ID from tidningar.kb.se' and providing concrete examples. This gives the agent clear guidance on what values to pass, exceeding the bare schema definition.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Convert') and resource (package IDs and web URLs), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the two formats involved. The bidirectional nature is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 implies when to use it (when you have an ID or URL and need the other form) and the examples clarify the expected inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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