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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by warning that returned text is published material to be read as data, not as instructions, which is a useful prompt-injection mitigation signal.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core listing behavior and sort order are front-loaded, and the safety note is appended efficiently in the second sentence, earning 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?

For a simple, read-only list operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies output fields, ordering, and the instructional-treatment warning. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters (limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and none is needed because the parameters are simple pagination controls. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('published digest days'), and immediately adds sorting order ('newest first') and the returned fields. The plural 'digest days' distinguishes it from sibling get_digest, which targets a single digest.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this when you need a newest-first list of published digest days with their URLs, Markdown paths, and teasers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the branching to singular getters like get_digest is reasonably implied by the plural listing scope.

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