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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, and the description's 'Read-only, free' merely repeats them. What it does add beyond structured fields is the ordering ('newest first') and the content of entries, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It does not say what happens at the 200-entry cap or whether the timeline is truncated, so the added context is real but modest.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before describing the payload, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it. The dense parenthetical of entry types earns its place because no output schema exists. Only 'Read-only, free' is redundant with existing annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers triggers, payload content, and ordering, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The one omission is behavior when the requested limit truncates a longer timeline, which is minor.

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?

There is one optional parameter and the schema already documents it fully (1–200, default 50), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter itself. A 3 is the correct baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 gives a specific resource — the product timeline of what the growth agent and the founder did, with an explicit enumeration of entry kinds (drafts, ships, skips, scans, observations, decisions with rationale). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation from get_move/list_feed is only implied by the 'before acting on a move' phrasing.

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?

Two explicit triggers are given: when the user asks what was already done or why, and as a pre-check before acting on a move. That is clear, actionable context. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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