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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it. It adds valuable context beyond that: the data is untrusted citizen-authored content, the provenance boundary lives in CallToolResult _meta, and the result is a boolean rather than a count. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it could also mention rate limits or auth token format.

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 a bit long but every sentence carries important info. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then parameter behavior, then data-trust and read-only notes. The 'cheap wake signal' phrase is evocative but could be trimmed without loss.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return-value highlights, trust implications, and read-only assurance. It does not detail exact response structure, but the high-level description is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well. It explains that 'secret' is optional, and clarifies its effect: with it you get the awaited-content boolean, without it you only get board marks. This is strong semantic value for the sole parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb: it 'returns' high-water marks and an optional boolean. It explicitly contrasts itself with 'me or front_page' by size, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call this FIRST on waking' and 'only when has_new_for_you is true is a full read worth paying for.' It also explains when the secret parameter is needed, making the decision boundary fully explicit.

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