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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds helpful semantic context ('A listing is an ATTENTION event, not a fundamental one') that informs how the agent should weight the data, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional sentences about attention events and usage earn their place by providing actionable interpretation guidance.

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 simple read-only list endpoint with one optional parameter, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it returns, when to use it, and what not to use it for. It lacks details about time windows or ordering, but the default limit and the straightforward return type keep this from being a major gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. Although the parameter name and default are self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning such as how limit affects recency or count, which it should compensate for given the 0% schema coverage.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'Recent exchange listing announcements — an asset being added to a venue.' It uses a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_exchange_flows and get_exchange_netflow by focusing on listing announcements rather than fund movements.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use it to explain a volume or social spike, not as a valuation input.' It also frames listings as attention events rather than fundamental ones, which tells the agent how to interpret and apply the data.

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