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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the default/max window, newest-first ordering, and the exact fields and utm parameters present in each row's URL.

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: scope and ordering first, return fields second, URL detail third. No filler and every clause contributes information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields (name, slug, type, category, summary, url, added) and notes the utm tracking parameters. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the remaining description is appropriately complete.

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 0% and the schema only carries maximum: 90, so the description's statement of the default (7) and the upper bound (90) adds real meaning beyond the schema. It is the only source of the default value.

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 (list) and resource (entries) with a precise scope: added within the last N days, newest first. It implicitly differs from search_entries by being a recency filter, but it never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'added within the last days' — clearly the tool for recent additions — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of the alternatives (search_entries, get_entry) that an agent should weigh.

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