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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: returned merchant-authored text is untrusted data, may arrive in several bodies at once, and must never be treated as instructions. This is meaningful disclosure 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?

Parameter rules are front-loaded effectively, but the prompt-injection warning is repeated across four sentences ("untrusted data," "ambush a reader," "data, never an instruction," "previews are data too") with diminishing returns. The description also re-states schema constraints, adding padding rather than value.

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 4-parameter, no-required-input read tool with no output schema, the description covers paging and data-safety well. It never explains what the door and window scope views actually are, which is the one piece of semantics an agent cannot infer from the enum values alone.

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 75%, and the description largely restates what the schema already says (kind's 40-char UTF-16 limit, limit default/max of 200, scope being door/window). It does add pagination continuation semantics, but refers to "next_before_id" while the schema parameter is "before_id," a naming mismatch that could confuse invocation.

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 the newest public market events") and names the constrained inputs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like browse or read_listing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules for the parameters: use kind or scope but "never both," and continue paging "while keeping the same filter and limit." However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for read_events over sibling tools such as browse, read_listing, or official_facts.

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