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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavior beyond that: the index adds a few top-journal papers every day and results are newest first. It omits return shape and any paging/limit interaction, but the freshness and ordering context is genuinely useful.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the operation ('What Frontier added most recently') and appends the scoping details. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: recency window, ordering, and optional field filter. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., empty window) and the limit's effect on ordering.

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 days, field, and limit are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description confirms recency semantics ('last N days') and that field is optional ('optionally within one field'), which mostly restates the schema rather than adding new 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 specific resource and scope: entries added in the last N days, newest first, optionally filtered to one field. This is clearly a recency-based listing distinct from get_breakthrough and search_breakthroughs, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is for pulling recent additions, and 'see list_fields' hints at the field filter. It does not say when to prefer this over search_breakthroughs or when a time-window listing is the wrong choice, leaving the routing to inference.

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