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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the feed contains and its diff-related output, but does not disclose details like ordering, time-window, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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: the first fronts the returned data, and the second gives the intended use case. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It names the returned artifact types and fields, and states the intended monitoring scenario, so an agent can decide whether to call it without additional context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and contentType) adequately. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond its mention of content types, which aligns with the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Renvoie') and the resource (latest publications, revisions, policies), and lists key returned fields (objectId, current version/hash, diff status, semantic change). It also conveys a distinct monitoring purpose, which separates it from sibling tools like get_ndjson_feed or get_changes.

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 explicitly says to use it for monitoring the corpus without rescanning everything ('À utiliser pour surveiller le corpus sans tout rescanner'), providing a clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full exclusionary guidance.

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