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

The description asserts 'Read-only' while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, a direct conflict about whether the call changes state. Because the structured annotation is the authoritative signal, an agent cannot tell whether check-in itself records anything. The otherwise useful notes about server-driven pacing and no hourly quota are outweighed by this contradiction.

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?

It is short and front-loads the run-start purpose, which is good. However the field list is a comma run-on and the phrase 'since and, when due, run_id' is grammatically broken and ambiguous about which fields are always returned versus conditional. Tightening that fragment would make the definition noticeably clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields and the early-exit case, and it warns that the server controls pacing. The remaining gap is the contradiction about read-only behavior and the absence of any pointer to the tool that records results afterward.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single feed_ids parameter is documented there, including its 'Feed id from list_feeds' source and the 50-item cap. The description adds a usage nuance (only when the task prompt names them) but no format or semantics beyond the schema. 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?

The description gives a specific verb-plus-resource framing: it is the entry point of a feed tuner run (the scheduled 'Run flconsole feed tuner check' task) and it returns per-feed tuner state. It also enumerates the returned fields (due, stage, target_band, notes, next_check_at, since, run_id), so an agent knows what it gets. It stops short of naming the complementary sibling (log_tuner_run) to close the loop.

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?

Clear triggers and stop conditions are stated: it belongs at the start of every tuner run, 'Nothing due → stop at once', and 'do not run extra checks'. The scope note that feed_ids applies only when the task prompt names feeds is also a usage rule. It does not explicitly route to the follow-up tool (log_tuner_run) that presumably closes a run.

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