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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world. The description adds the paging model (cursor-based, following filters stay constant) and the shared-filter behavior, which is useful context beyond the safety profile.

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 plus a compact example; the enumeration and routing cue come first and nothing is padded. Every element earns its place.

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 no explanation. For a read-only, cursor-paged browse tool, the description covers section choice, filter parity, and paging adequately.

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 parameter meaning is already documented. The description adds value by tying the filters to search_resources' filter set and by giving a concrete call example showing vertical/technology/limit usage together.

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 ('newest resources in one section'), enumerates the valid verticals, and explicitly contrasts it with search_resources. An agent can distinguish it from browse-like siblings without opening the 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?

Says to use it 'to browse without a query' and notes it shares filters and cursor paging with search_resources, which implies the alternative for query-driven lookups. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing context is clear.

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