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

Beyond annotations, it discloses user-visible side effects in Telegram, presence of an Undo button, that findings are not shown to users, that the server sets the next check, and a storage-change rate limit. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a write tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, with each detail carrying useful meaning. It is somewhat run-on and could be structured more cleanly, but it avoids wasted text.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema and partial parameter descriptions, it covers purpose, key field semantics, user-visible effects, and rate limits well. It does not describe what the call returns or edge cases like duplicate run logging, leaving minor gaps.

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 only 33%, but the description meaningfully explains findings, change, reason, and open_question semantics, including user visibility and one-sentence formatting. It relies on the schema for run_id and feed_id, and does not fully clarify required reason vs optional change.

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 endpoint action: ending/logging a tuner run for one feed, including no-change runs. It is clearly distinct from tuner_checkin by timing, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

It clearly says to use this at the end of a tuner run and even when nothing changed, which is important usage context. It lacks explicit exclusions or a direct comparison to tuner_checkin, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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