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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), but the description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape and categories of the result (waiting announcements, 7-day window, last landed one) and the evidence types involved. With no output schema, this added return-context is genuinely useful; it stops short of describing structure 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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a colon-delimited scope list. The closing sentence is a directive to the caller rather than a description, which is slightly unusual, but it is short and carries real signal about interpretation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden of explaining what comes back; it does so at the category level (pending / 7-day / last landed, each with evidence) and warns about evidence gradations. What is still missing is the concrete result structure or field-level detail, but the essential orientation for a parameterless read tool is present.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is none to give, and schema description coverage is nominally 100%.

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+resource ("Get Tibo's Codex usage-limit resets and reset credits") and then enumerates the exact scope of the payload: pending announcements, last 7 days, last landed one. This sharp niche is immediately distinguishable from the generic aggregation siblings (daily/weekly/monthly/latest/search).

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?

The description makes clear what the tool is about, so an agent can infer when it applies, but it never states when to use it versus an alternative such as aihot_search, nor does it give any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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