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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: newest-first ordering, that entries carry their originating briefing, and the inclusion of the 'chicca' archive story. It stops short of describing pagination or result volume.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and ending with the routing hint. The 'chicca' parenthetical is mildly jargon-heavy but serves a genuine documentation purpose.

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 list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies sort order, result composition, search scope, and routing to the write siblings. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by enumerating what `query` searches across (title, text, topics, briefing title) rather than leaving it as 'a word to search for'. The `limit` parameter is left to the schema.

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 resource and scope: saved stories from briefings, including the 'chicca' archive item, with newest-first ordering. It also names the write siblings (save_entry, unsave_entry). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named list_read_later sibling, which an agent must resolve on its own.

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?

Explicitly routes mutation intent to save_entry/unsave_entry and explains the `query` use case, giving clear context for calling this tool. No when-not guidance and no disambiguation against list_read_later or list_briefings.

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