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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it details what event types are included (closure candidates with 'missing from the monthly web source 2 consecutive checks' and 'web-verified closures with evidence URL'), and emphasizes it's a freshness signal that should not be cached. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a bit long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose ('Monthly change feed') then elaborates on event types and the caching caveat. The structure is logical and not redundant. It's slightly verbose but still efficiently communicates the essential details.

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 the output schema exists (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers what events are reported, the freshness/caching aspect, and the optional date filter. It's complete for an agent to understand what to expect and how to call it. Minor gaps like pagination or size limits are not mentioned, but those are likely in the output 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the `since` parameter is fully described as 'Optional ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), inclusive.' The description's mention of 'Optional since (YYYY-MM-DD) returns only events on/after that date' essentially repeats the schema. Since the schema already carries the parameter meaning, the description adds minimal value here. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Monthly change feed for the ramen DB' and enumerates specific event types (new shops, closure candidates, web-verified closures, reopenings). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ramen_shop (single shop lookup) and search_ramen/vibe_search (search tools). The unique capability of being a change feed is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is the freshness signal you cannot cache: poll it to keep a local copy honest.' This clearly indicates it's for syncing and updates. It also mentions the optional `since` parameter for date filtering. While it doesn't explicitly say 'don't use this for X', the context strongly implies the right use case. It lacks explicit exclusions but is still clear.

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