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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: that counts cover legacy memories only, which warns the agent against misreading the numbers as full coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and each following sentence adds a distinct constraint (data scope) or routing hint.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the fields returned and flags the legacy-count limitation, which is enough for a parameterless read tool. It could say slightly more about ordering or return shape, but nothing essential 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, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 (public topics/Orbits) and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, slugs, owners, write policies). It also disambiguates the API's terminology ('called Orbits in the API'), so an agent can tell it apart from get_orbit_overview and get_orbit_context.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: counts cover legacy memories only, so use search_contributions for revisioned contributions, and use create_topic to introduce a new subject. That is clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, though it doesn't address when to prefer the orbit-context/overview siblings that arguably overlap.

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