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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is an 'edited' overview rather than raw entries, which is genuine context, but it says nothing about edition availability handling or limits beyond what the schema already documents.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the usage cue. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and full schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, selection rule, and content nature adequately. There is no output schema, but the phrase 'edited daily overview' gives enough sense of the return shape that nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the enum and the edition_unavailable behavior. The description reinforces that the date must be a 'real' YYYY-MM-DD and that omission yields the latest, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('Get e/acc's edited daily overview') plus the scope of what can be requested (latest issue or a dated one). It implicitly separates itself from a raw chronological feed, which differentiates it from eacc_get_latest, though it never names that sibling.

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?

'Use this when the user asks for a daily report rather than a raw chronological list' gives a clear selection condition and a contrast case. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when to prefer weekly/monthly siblings, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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