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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the lookup is limited to a 'bounded recent' public feed — which warns that older or non-public signals may not resolve, but says nothing about miss/error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (exact, published, bounded recent, public feed) carries scoping information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the feed-scope caveat is present. However, the sole parameter's format is left entirely to inference and no failure mode is described, leaving an agent under-informed on how to supply a valid slug.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the single slug parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description only implies 'exact' matching without citing the slug format, the kebab-case pattern, or the 160-char limit. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (signal) with the qualifier 'exact published signal from the bounded recent public feed', which hints at slug-based lookup versus the search-oriented sibling. It does not name search_signals or get_signal_evidence explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 word 'exact' implies this is the direct-lookup path when the slug is already known, distinguishing it loosely from search_signals, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is spelled out. Usage is only implied.

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