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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies data freshness ('saved findings may describe older events discovered recently') and negative-result semantics ('No findings is not proof of no activity'), plus that it reads saved records rather than running new research. Only return/pagination behavior is left unstated, which is acceptable given the safety hints.

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 front-loaded with the triggering user questions, then the mechanics, then caveats, in a logical order with no filler sentences. There is minor redundancy between 'since a chosen date' and 'Defaults to the last seven days', keeping it just short of a 5.

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 compensates by describing the returned fields (event date, recorded date, source links), the default window, the domain filter, and the freshness/negative-result caveats. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, since, and domains, including defaults. The description restates 'Defaults to the last seven days' and 'Optional domains restrict the list', which duplicates structured data rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return newly recorded findings for your tracked accounts since a chosen date') and includes the exact return fields (public event date, recorded date, source links). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account (single account detail) and get_daily_brief, since it is scoped to change-findings over a window.

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 opens with concrete user-query triggers ('anything happening on my account list?', 'what changed at these companies this week?') and specifies the default window and the domains restriction condition. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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