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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's read-only nature and real-time behavior, and mentions geographic limitations. However, it does not address pagination, rate limits, or frequency of updates.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though includes some promotional language ('FREE'). Every sentence adds context, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the content and geographic coverage. It partially describes the output format, making it reasonably complete for a feed tool.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 'limit' with a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a live feed of ABC and receivership public legal notices, specifying the types of notices and what is included. It distinguishes from sibling tools like abc_find_notices by emphasizing its real-time, firehose nature.

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 implies use for monitoring wind-downs in real-time but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like abc_find_notices. It provides geographic context (WA, FL, etc.) but no explicit when-not guidance.

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