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

Annotations only cover read-only and closed-world, so this description carries the weight, and it does: ordering (newest first), the tier filtering rule, the meaning of relevant:true, and the no-auth path. It stops short of describing edge cases such as what an expired or malformed token does.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the return contract, and the tier rule is stated before the boilerplate args/returns block. The Args and Returns restatements duplicate structured fields and could be trimmed without loss.

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, the description usefully sketches the return shape ({ ok, tier, signed_in, total, entries }) and explains the two fields that need explaining, relevant and min_tier. Complete enough for a read-only listing 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 coverage is 100%, and the description only restates the same bounds ({ limit?: integer 1-100 }) without adding format or semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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?

A specific verb and resource: it returns the 'What's New at IC' changelog in newest-first order, and it anchors that to a concrete surface ('the same list the /whats-new page shows'). That separates it cleanly from siblings like ic_news_get or ic_signal_get_latest, which cover different 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?

It says exactly what you get with and without a token, including that no auth is required, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. What's missing is an explicit contrast with the nearest sibling (ic_news_get), so the agent has to infer that choice itself.

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