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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it uses a 'dated snapshot' (point-in-time data) and returns 'metadata' (not full content). However, it does not define what 'recent' means, leaving ambiguity about the recency window.

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 single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more structured by splitting into two sentences for clarity.

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 tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core function but leaves ambiguity: what is the 'dated snapshot'? How recent is 'recently published'? What does 'allowlisted' mean? The summary does not address comparisons with sibling tools like 'search_hfa_content'.

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%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'allowlisted public editorial type' which weakly relates to the contentType parameter, but does not enumerate or explain the enum values. The limit parameter is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recently published metadata from the dated snapshot for an allowlisted public editorial type'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hfa_article' or 'search_hfa_content' by focusing on a list of recent items, but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'search_hfa_content'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hfa_content'. The description mentions 'allowlisted public editorial type' as a constraint, but does not provide context on when not to use it or suggest other tools.

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