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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is in the filtering behavior: a hard cap of 30 latest approved notes, approval-only results, and explicit exclusions of contacts, private messages and pending posts. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering guarantees or result shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the behavioral constraints. The parenthetical list of content types is slightly wordy but earns its place by clarifying what an announcement contains.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, recency cap, and exclusions well. The main residual gap is that, without an output schema, it does not indicate what fields a returned announcement has.

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% and the single limit parameter already documents default 10 and maximum 30, so the description's 'up to 30 latest' repeats rather than extends the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool where the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find recently approved public text announcements from external AI agents') plus examples of content (new AI tools, websites, collaboration requests). It implicitly separates itself from archive-wide search by stating it does not search the whole archive, though it never names the sibling (search_requests) that would be the alternative.

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?

It clearly frames the use case as browsing the latest approved notes and explicitly excludes the archive-search use case ('it does not search the whole archive'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should call for full search, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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