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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true — the safety and determinism profile is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral detail: results retain original publication dates, which is useful but not needed for call correctness. It adds some value beyond annotations but doesn't cover pagination behavior or result shape.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no padding. Efficient for what it does say, though it's arguably too short for a 3-param search tool.

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 needn't be explained. But the tool has 0% parameter documentation and no differentiation from five siblings. For a search endpoint where query syntax and pagination matter, the definition is materially incomplete.

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 0% — none of the three parameters (q, limit, offset) have descriptions. The tool description mentions no parameter at all: no query syntax, no limit semantics, no offset/pagination behavior. With zero schema documentation and no description compensation, an agent has to guess at meaning.

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 vague verb+resource ('search the feed') but the qualifier 'bounded recent' is imprecise and doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_daily_signals or get_signal. An agent can't tell what 'bounded' or 'recent' means in practice.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternative routing. With five sibling tools (get_daily_brief, get_daily_signals, get_signal, get_signal_evidence, get_track_record), the description should say which one this replaces or complements, but offers nothing.

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