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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the tool is free/no-payment and returns text rather than structured data, but omits freshness/latency of 'live' data, whether the board is a snapshot, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key qualifier ('FREE') front-loaded and the return contents enumerated parenthetically. No filler or restated name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it lists the summary's contents so the agent knows what comes back. It falls short on defining 'live' freshness and how this board differs from related akari summaries.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to misdescribe; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds return-content hints instead of redundant parameter text.

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 names a specific resource (live edge board) and states the output form (text summary) plus its contents (verdict, regime, passing edges, refusals). The purpose is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like akari_desk_state or akari_alpha_brief, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

Beyond 'FREE: ... No payment,' there is no guidance on when to call this versus the nineteen sibling akari_* tools, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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