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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: a public view filtered to beacons with intent set, unexpired ready_until, and not dnd/away, plus an honest empty state. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 WHEN clause and sibling contrasts are front-loaded and dense. 'Credit: Dead Brands' and the trailing example are non-essential noise, keeping it from a 5.

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, and the description covers the filter semantics, empty-state behavior, and routing versus siblings. What's missing is only minor (limit semantics).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only hints at filtering ('with intent set') and says nothing about how the limit is applied or the default page behavior, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (Signal Exchange signals) and the action (browse/list) and explicitly distinguishes it from arena_presence_list and arena_intro_request. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though the leading sentence 'Signal Exchange list' is essentially the title restated.

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?

It gives an explicit WHEN clause ('browse active Signal Exchange signals') and names two alternatives with their distinguishing scopes (presence_list = all online, intro_request = invite). It does not state when-not to use it beyond that contrast, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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