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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying what the listing surfaces (counts, recency, active flag) and by stating the downstream contract with search_reports. It does not mention pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter covers that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its payload, followed by the cross-tool hint. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage and safety annotations present, the description only needs to add purpose and cross-tool linkage, which it does. Pagination via cursor is left to the schema, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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%: limit, query and cursor are all documented inline with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as substring-matching semantics for query or cursor expiry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 publishers whose reports Rösti collects') and immediately enumerates the returned fields: report counts, newest report date, active status. It also draws the boundary with search_reports by explaining that source ids serve as that tool's filter, so the agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Implies the discover-then-filter workflow: call this to obtain source ids, then pass them to search_reports' sources filter. That is a concrete routing cue to a named sibling. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use search_reports directly if you only need reports), so it is not a 5.

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