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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read-only index returning metadata (dates, titles, URLs) and that full content must be retrieved separately. However, it doesn't disclose potential pagination, error behavior, or auth requirements. Since it's a benign list operation, a minimal-disclosure score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence defines the tool's content, and the second gives a clear usage flow. The most important info (what it lists and how to use the result) is front-loaded.

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-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the output fields (dates, titles, URLs), the ordering context ('recent'), and the intended next step. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that full editions are not included, though this is strongly implied by the follow-up instruction. The schema covers the limit parameter.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is already fully described in the schema with its default and max. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear resource (the archive index) and its content ('recent daily briefs and weekly digests with dates, titles and canonical URLs'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming the follow-up content tools (get_daily_briefing, get_weekly_digest), so an agent immediately knows this is the lookup/list tool, not a content fetcher.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use it to find the edition that covered a date or a story, then call get_daily_briefing or get_weekly_digest with that date.' This explicitly describes when to use this tool and routes the agent to the appropriate siblings for the next step.

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