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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful extra behavioral constraint: only allowlisted public feeds are accepted and arbitrary paths are rejected, and clarifies the data is the public NDJSON variants. This goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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 compact sentences, no filler: the first sentence states the tool's scope and enumerates valid feeds, the second adds the key security constraint. Information 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 simple read tool with a complete input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential call constraints and feed choices. It is slightly incomplete only in not relating the feed variants to the dedicated sibling endpoints, but an agent can still invoke it correctly.

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 parameters are already documented. The description mainly restates the feed enum values in prose and adds the 'public/NDJSON' context, but does not add detail about limit or recordType beyond the schema; 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 uses a clear verb ('Lit') and a specific resource ('variantes NDJSON publiques de l'Agent Surface'), and enumerates the five allowed feed names, so an agent can see what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similarly named siblings such as get_claims or get_changes, so it loses a point on differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The only constraint stated is the allowlist/no-arbitrary-path restriction; the description never tells the agent when to choose this raw NDJSON tool over get_claims, get_changes, get_evidence_graph, or get_signal_history.

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