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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description reveals the important nuance that dates come from PubDate metadata and file upload timestamps rather than permalink dates, explaining why the permalink date is often stale. This behavioral insight is not derivable from the annotations and is critical for correct use.

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 deliver purpose, mechanism, a critical caveat, and usage guidance without wasted words. The key phrase 'actual publish dates' is front-loaded, and the caveat about permalink staleness is tightly integrated.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description fully explains what the tool returns, why it matters, and how to use it relative to sibling tools. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently conveys the nature of the output.

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?

The single optional 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with description and default/max semantics, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but that is acceptable given 100% schema coverage; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('actual publish dates of SAFE's reserves/BOP/external-debt English pages'), and it clearly distinguishes this tool from the data-fetching sibling tools by emphasizing it is about date currency, not data values. The contrast with permalink dates further sharpens the identity.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this to check how current the other three tools' data is before citing it.' This identifies the intended workflow and implicitly excludes using it for anything other than freshness verification, making the alternative usage clear without needing to name siblings.

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