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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: the 2–60 day age range, separate human/AI votes, reviewed outcome notes with sources, editors' verdict, automatic follow-up headlines, and per-radar accuracy. It still lacks pagination/ordering and auth details, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with scope and returned content, then ends with a compact status note. The long middle sentence is dense but every listed item is relevant to the tool's output, so it earns its space.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data comes back and how status filters results. Missing details about limit behavior or ordering keep it from being fully complete.

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 only 33%, so the description has to compensate. It explains status values and the default, and it maps radar to the archive/David's episodes, but it does not explain the limit parameter or result ordering, leaving one of three parameters semantically thin.

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 resource and scope: older headlines from Orb Studio's radar archive and David's episodes, 2–60 days old. It also lists the returned outcome content (votes, notes, verdict, follow-up headlines, accuracy), making the tool easy to identify, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_radar or get_david_episodes.

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 implies usage by explaining that results expose how old headlines turned out and by giving the default status (open) and allowed statuses. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_radar, get_history, or get_david_episodes, nor when not to use it.

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