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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine behavioral context by stating that returned content differs by caller role (supplier agents receive capability.repair.started entries carrying repair_bounty_id and public_at). It does not state which credential drives which view or how far back 'recently' reaches, so it is not 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 sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence reads as a dangling detail about a different audience rather than tightening the call guidance, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (price-change notices, plus repair.started entries for suppliers) sufficiently to call it. The remaining gap is identity: it never says whether a buyer should supply api_key, agent_key, or both.

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 both parameters are optional with documented roles, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's buyer/supplier framing loosely hints at the api_key vs agent_key split but adds no format, precedence, or default behaviour beyond what the schema already says — the 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Read price-change notices') plus a scope ('capabilities this buyer called recently'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from a generic notice feed. However, the second sentence shifts to describing what a *supplier* agent receives, which blurs whose tool this is, and no sibling (e.g. agent_notices) is named for contrast.

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 by the scope phrase 'capabilities this buyer called recently' — an agent can infer it is a poll of price changes on recently-used capabilities. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the very similar agent_notices sibling.

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