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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, lowering the bar. The description adds that the tool intentionally returns only recent opinions rather than full history, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination limits beyond the schema, or behavior when no new opinions exist.

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 concise sentences front-load the core behavior and purpose, then add the since_id usage detail. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema 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?

For a read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the essential invocation choices: scope across all or one discussion, recency-based retrieval, and incremental since_id usage. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated because the return type is clearly 'opinions,' though default ordering is left implicit.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain since_id's meaning and implies optional thread scoping, but it does not explicitly describe the limit parameter's semantics, leaving that to inference from the name and constraints.

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 clearly states the operation: retrieving only the latest opinions, optionally scoped to a single discussion, with the explicit goal of saving context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_discussion or get_argument_map, which target different resources or full views.

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 gives a clear intended use case ('to save context') and explains how to use since_id for incremental fetches of only newer opinions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is fairly unambiguous.

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