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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that — results are sorted by publication date descending — but says nothing about pagination, total counts, or whether results are bounded beyond the schema's max of 50.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier (newest first) is placed before the noun it modifies. It is efficient but so terse that there was room to add routing value at no structural cost.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only missing element is sibling routing, which is scored under usage guidelines rather than completeness.

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 100% with a single optional limit parameter already documented including its default of 10 and 1-50 bounds. The description adds no further meaning about how limit interacts with the newest-first ordering, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 verb+resource (話の一覧を返す) plus the ordering (公開日の新しい順), which lets an agent tell it apart from a plain listing. However, it never names the sibling list_episodes, so the differentiation from that tool is left implicit rather than explicit.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related list_episodes sibling. The agent must infer from the word 新着 alone that this is the 'recent items' variant.

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