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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: page 0 shifts as new changes publish, pages stop at 25 (500 changes), a call consumes the key's quota and rejected arguments are free. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Every clause carries information: purpose, routing, pagination, behavior, quota. It is delivered as one dense paragraph, so the pagination and quota details are slightly buried rather than front-loaded, which keeps it from a 5.

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 values need not be explained. Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params), the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, ordering, page limits, live-shift caveat, iteration rule, and quota cost.

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; the description exceeds it by explaining the iteration contract ('start at page 0 and pass page + 1 while hasMore is true') and clarifying that locale affects only the language of headlines, not content selection. It adds genuine meaning about how the two parameters interact with control flow.

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 and resource ('List the newest published changes on AiSeek'), plus ordering and page size ('newest first, 20 per page'), and scopes the content domains. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (search_changes, list_topics, get_latest_brief), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use statement ('Use it to see what is new') and routes three distinct alternatives by intent: search_changes for a subject/company/country, list_topics for a curated subject, get_latest_brief for a digest. The selection criteria are stated rather than left to inference.

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