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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: silent fallback to Chinese without translation when English is missing, and that published records may not reflect current rules. This is real context an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the caveats. No filler, though the 'at most 30 days' phrasing partially duplicates the schema's maximum constraint.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description does well on data-quality caveats and language behavior but leaves the topic/exchange filters and the shape of returned notices unexplained. Adequate, but a gap remains for a 4-parameter filtering 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the days window and the lang fallback semantics well, but says nothing about the 15-value topic enum or the free-text exchange filter, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 resource (CEC published notice records) with a concrete scope limit (at most 30 days) and notes the language of the content. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling recent_rule_changes, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'notices' and 'rule changes'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 30-day cap and the caveat that records 'are not verified current rules' hint that this is for raw recent announcements rather than authoritative rule lookups. It never names an alternative tool or states explicitly when not to use it.

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