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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld hints: it discloses the 'Unconfirmed:' prefix convention, that the feed is a hash-chained public record, the meaning of all three UTC ms clocks, ascending impact range, cursor paging, and that no credentials are required. These are call-relevant behaviors an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, and every clause carries information (clocks, prefix convention, sibling pointer, auth status). It is dense to the point of being a single packed paragraph, but there is little outright waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what each returned item contains (headline, three timestamps, focus tags, category, impact 0-100) plus pagination and free-tier access. Nothing needed to call or interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, categories and min_impact fully. The description only adds 'Page with next_cursor', which is marginally more than the schema states; the impact range and category list merely restate schema content. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (public market-event feed) with explicit scope ('every headline Muhabbit's wire published, newest first') and enumerates the covered categories. An agent can distinguish it from muhabbit_news and muhabbit_categories without opening any 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?

Gives clear usage context and routes one case explicitly: unconfirmed exchange security alerts live here, but 'their evidence is in muhabbit_alerts', naming the sibling to follow up with. It stops short of stating when to prefer muhabbit_news or muhabbit_search over this feed, so no full when/when-not matrix.

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