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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this tool is read-only, what actions trigger modifications, or any authorization requirements. The advice to respond with add_note or suggest_edit hints at a workflow but does not clearly describe the tool's behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and then provide actionable guidance. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It explains the core function and hints at the follow-up action, but lacks details on return values, pagination, or error conditions.

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 50% (only 'days' has a description). The description adds no additional parameter meanings beyond the schema. It does not explain how 'limit' behaves or clarify the expected input format for 'days' beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find older articles whose time-sensitive claims should be re-verified.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and identifies the resource ('articles') with a specific condition ('time-sensitive claims'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_article or search_news.

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 description provides some usage guidance by advising the agent to 'Respond with a sourced add_note or an editorially reviewed suggest_edit.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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