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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance—"newest first" ordering and the subtle point that "The date FDA prints is when the FIRM was added to the alert"—which affects how an agent interprets results. No contradictions with 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the opening question frames intent, the second states the core function, the third gives usage context, and the fourth clarifies an important date nuance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description is complete for a correct invocation. It explains the filter semantics, ordering, optional alert scoping, and the FDA date interpretation, leaving no critical gap for this simple list tool.

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 parameters like since, limit, and import_alert_number are already documented. The description reinforces that filtering is optional per alert and that results are newest first, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action—"Returns the listings whose published date is on or after a date you give, newest first, optionally for one alert"—with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool's niche from firm-lookup workflows via "rather than to look a firm up," making it easy to tell apart from siblings like get_listing or resolve_firm.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: "Use this to watch a category—new detentions on the seafood alerts, say—rather than to look a firm up." This gives a clear intended context and an exclusion, though it does not name alternative sibling tools directly.

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