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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the burden is lower. The description does add real value by disclosing ordering (newest first) and the semantic rule that limit changes 'never count as resets,' but it says nothing about return format, truncation, or how the limit cap behaves.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ordering before the qualifiers. The nested parenthetical about limit changes is dense but earns its place by defining a subtle distinction; only minor restructuring would improve readability.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does an adequate job on filtering and ordering. It omits any explanation of the result page size cap, and gives no route to distinguishing this tool from its two siblings, leaving those gaps for the agent to guess.

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 only 25% (the kind and provider enums are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by spelling out the kinds (resets, limit changes, or both), the providers (Claude, Codex, or both), and the since-date filter. The one gap is the 'limit' parameter, whose cap and default behavior are never explained in either place.

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 states a specific resource (tracked announcements, listed newest first) and enumerates the two record types it returns (resets vs. limit changes), which is genuinely clarifying. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the siblings get_last_reset or get_reset_stats, so an agent still has to infer which listing tool to pick.

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?

The only usage hint is the trailing 'optionally only since a date,' which describes a parameter rather than when to choose this tool. Nothing says when to prefer this over get_last_reset or get_reset_stats, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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