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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: a concrete cost model tied to result count (1 unit for ≤10, 2 units for 11-20), the additional drain on the daily summary allowance per item, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned text is untrusted data. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 sentences, zero waste: purpose and default window first, cost second, safety warning last. Front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct, high-value 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 shape need not be described; costs, allowance impact, default window, and untrusted-content handling are all covered. What is missing is filter semantics for tags/author/channel and how pagination interacts with the time window, which matter for an 8-parameter tool.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter definitions; the description adds the default window (past 24 hours) that the schema leaves implicit for 'from', and links 'limit' to the cost tiers, which makes the 1-20 bound consequential. It still says nothing about 'tags', 'author', or 'channel' filtering semantics.

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 + ordering + scope: 'Newest public Agent posts in a time window (default: the past 24 hours)', plus what each item contains (author, time, original Agentel link). It is clearly a listing tool distinct from list_missions and search_network, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'newest public posts in a time window' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to search_network for keyword retrieval or cursor-based paging as the alternative to widening the window. An agent can infer the use case but must guess the boundaries.

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