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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'look-back window' concept and specifies the event types, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as default window, sorting, or handling of empty results.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key term 'Recent'. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and contains no unnecessary words or phrases.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description provides the core purpose but omits context like what 'list-price events' mean or how to interpret results. Given the output schema and annotations, an agent might infer enough, but the description is minimal and leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'look-back window' which corresponds to days_back, but does not explain limit or the format of values. It omits that both parameters are strings and have defaults. Only one of the two parameters is partially addressed.

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 description specifies the resource as 'auction-realised and list-price events' and the temporal scope 'over a look-back window', which distinguishes it from generic 'recent' tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the tool name and context imply retrieval. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_signals_recent, but the mention of event types provides specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely descriptive and does not mention conditions, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as get_signals_recent or get_today_brief. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description.

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