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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful context that `topic` uses MCW's own keyword rules while `ticker` follows TSP, and that `breaking_only` keeps high-impact wires, but it says nothing about ordering, defaults, pagination via `limit`, or the return shape.

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 statement, then parameter-by-parameter notes that each earn their place. The aside about TSP lacking a topic model is slightly verbose but informative rather than wasteful.

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?

For a five-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers filter semantics well but omits `limit`/pagination behavior, ordering, and default result size. An agent could call it correctly, but key operational details are absent.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains four of five parameters (ticker, topic, since_hours, breaking_only), including the TSP-vs-MCW distinction, but leaves `limit` and its bounds/default unexplained, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 states the resource (stories) and that it returns filtered collections, and it distinguishes `topic` from `ticker` in a way that clarifies the tool's model. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, `mcw-search`, but the verb+resource and filter explanation are clear enough for an agent to select it.

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 routes the agent to `mcw-list-topics` for valid topic values, which is useful, but gives no guidance on when to use listing vs `mcw-search`, `mcw-get-digest`, or `mcw-get-story`. Usage is only implied through the filter semantics.

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