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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the default lookback (7 days), the maximum (30 days), and the kinds of updates returned. It could say more about pagination or exact response shape, but with annotations present this is solid.

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 two tight sentences. The usage trigger is front-loaded, followed immediately by what the tool returns, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call it, the default and maximum time window, and the nature of the returned content (answers, posts ready to review, what was posted). It stops short of detailing the exact response structure, but overall it gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the only parameter ('days') is fully documented in the schema with its default and max. The description repeats the default and max but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: the Suara team's replies and updates. It distinguishes itself from the sibling send_to_suara by focusing on retrieving replies rather than sending requests, and it enumerates the content types returned.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: when the signed-in owner asks if there's news from Suara, or after send_to_suara. This clearly links it to a sibling tool, though it does not state when not to use it or name any other alternatives.

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