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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: "Marks nothing as seen," which is important since the name could imply it consumes/clears the seen state. It doesn't cover return shape or pagination.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource is front-loaded before the routing advice. The alternative phrasing "For the number and what changed in one reply" is slightly convoluted but still efficient.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that neither parameter is documented anywhere, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of brandSlug and marketId.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not mention brandSlug or marketId at all. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, but nothing compensates for the total absence of schema-level descriptions.

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 Overview's new-since-last-visit list" identifies the specific resource and scope (new-since-last-visit), and the reference to parse_what_changed helps distinguish it from that sibling. It is framed as a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb, so the operation itself is inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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 explicitly routes the agent: "For the number and what changed in one reply, call parse_what_changed first." This names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when this tool itself is the right choice versus parse_dashboard_overview.

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