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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: free access, not behind the paid signal read, no key required. It also discloses return ordering (newest first) and the field set (kind, title, body, effective_at, pinned, superseded), which helps an agent interpret results.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the scope and endpoint come first, then the access conditions, then the return shape, then the call-to-action. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and ordering, and covers auth/cost. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't indicate what values 'kind' can take or what 'superseded' implies for downstream decisions.

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 100% and both parameters carry inline descriptions including the 1-50 range and default of 20, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as what a vault_id resolves from beyond the endpoint hint already in the schema.

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 and resource ('Read a Forge vault's announcements') and pins it to an endpoint (GET /forge/vaults/{vault_id}/notices), which also distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tool vault_announce. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

'Read it before you follow or deposit' gives an explicit precondition for downstream actions, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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