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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about how many dates are returned, ordering, whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, or how stale it might be — meaningful gaps for a discovery tool whose whole value is the returned set.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the immediate use case. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned ('dates') and why. Adding ordering or completeness guarantees would round it out, but nothing essential for invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description introduces none, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('archived daily editions (dates)') with the added scope qualifier 'from the free digest'. The purpose is immediately graspable, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like daily_signals or what_changed.

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 to find which dates can be cited' gives a concrete, actionable use case rather than leaving intent implicit. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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