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

The description usefully discloses the shape of the result (live state, worsening alerts, deltas since last visit), which annotations cannot convey. However, it does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for what reads like a listing operation — presumably the 'since your last visit' window is advanced on call — leaving the side effect undisclosed.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the payload content and the example is short and directly actionable. Slight length could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a high level (live state, alerts, new items), but it leaves the exact structure and the visit-tracking side effect ambiguous. Adequate but not fully complete for a stateful listing 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'key'. The inline example {"key":"fbk_…"} reinforces the format but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.

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 names the resource (your saved tools) and the three things returned: live state, degradation alerts, and new-since-last-visit items. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as whats_new or faceabot_status that plausibly overlap on the 'what's new' angle.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With siblings like whats_new, list_open_needs, and find_capability in the same namespace, an agent is left to infer that this tool is the per-user toolbox view rather than a system-wide changelog.

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