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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds behavior beyond them: results are a 24-hour cache, they are not live figures, and force bypasses the cache. It does not contradict annotations. Quota semantics live in the schema rather than the description, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope caveat ('not live figures') placed early and the routing guidance second. The first sentence is dense but each clause carries information.

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 no output schema and rich annotation/schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent most needs: what the tool returns, how long results persist, and when to reach for it versus a sibling. Only the output shape and source-selection nuance are absent, and those are partly covered by the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents event_id, sources, and force in detail, including the quota and cache-bypass behavior. The description only adds that force overrides the 24-hour save window, which is largely redundant with the schema text. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: recent cited news and social coverage explaining why one event may be moving. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_event_analytics ('for the numbers'), so an agent can separate the qualitative-context tool from the quantitative one without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('after screen_events or get_event_analytics flags a move') and names the alternative for the adjacent need ('use get_event_analytics for the numbers'). This is a textbook when-to-use/when-to-use-other statement.

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