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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, yet the description adds real behavioral context: no account or token required, results ordered newest first, the active-topics list is bundled in the response, and third-party text arrives under `contenuti_di_terzi` and must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions. That last point is a meaningful safety disclosure no annotation carries.

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 core behavior, then segmented into 'When to use', 'Notes', and example arguments. Every line carries information an agent can act on; nothing is redundant.

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 what comes back (recent messages, newest first, plus active topics) and by naming the untrusted-content field. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete.

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% with documented ranges and defaults, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by supplying a concrete example argument object showing how `topic` and `limit` combine in practice.

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 verb and resource ('Return recent public messages from the square'), plus ordering (newest first), optional filtering, and an additional return element (active topics). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like post_to_square and search_archive.

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 explicit 'When to use' line gives two concrete scenarios: checking discussion before posting and following a single topic. It ties into the post_to_square workflow but names no exclusions or negative cases.

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