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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the newest-first ordering and that results carry source evidence, but says nothing about pagination, the 'open' vs other signal states, or the default/max result count.

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 short sentences, zero filler: purpose and ordering first, then the filter set, then the usage trigger. Every sentence carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the definition covers the domain concept, filters, ordering, and usage trigger. The remaining gap is that limit (min 1, max 50, no default stated) is unexplained anywhere.

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 60% (limit and severity lack descriptions), so the description does useful compensating work: it names competitor_id, severity with its low/medium/high levels, a text query, and a since time. Only the limit parameter is left entirely undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Searches open signals') plus ordering ('newest first'), and defines the domain term 'signal' as a competitor move with source evidence so an agent knows what is being returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling what_changed, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Use it when the user asks what a competitor changed') and enumerates the filter axes available. There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives among the many sibling search/list tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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