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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds that results are limited to recent products and sorted by publication recency, which is helpful, but it does not describe pagination, ordering details beyond 'recently published', or what happens when no products match.

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?

Three short sentences, each serving a purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No fluff or repetition that hurts usability.

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 read-only listing tool with fully described optional parameters, the definition covers the essential invocation context. It lacks an explicit output shape, but the absence of an output schema is partially offset by the statement that the tool returns the most recently published products.

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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description minimally reinforces the 'days' concept but adds no substantive meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool lists recently launched PeerPush products within a configurable number of days, which is specific and action-oriented. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like peerpush_trending, but the new-launch framing makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear relevance cues: it should be used for newly launched products or recent software releases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context provided is sufficient for typical agent routing.

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