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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that — result ordering ('newest first') and account-scoped visibility — but says nothing about pagination, whether limit truncates silently, or how the 800 max behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope and ordering arrive immediately. It is efficiently written, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. But for a discovery tool with two undocumented parameters and no stated relationship to get_signals, the description does not give quite enough for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it does not. Neither 'limit' (default 60, max 800) nor 'market' (default 'us', maxLength 20) is mentioned, leaving the agent to guess whether 'market' is a country code, exchange, or segment.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List published signal sessions visible to this account, newest first,' which tells an agent exactly what it gets and in what order. It does not, however, distinguish this date/index tool from the many sibling signal getters (get_signals, get_pivot_signals, get_alpharank_signals), so an agent must infer the relationship.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious pairing (call this to discover dates/availability, then call get_signals to fetch content). Nothing rules in or out alternatives, and no prerequisites are stated despite the implicit auth-scoped visibility.

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