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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a ~500-entry scan ceiling and a complete=false signal when the date is too far back, plus the 'Keyless' note. It omits return shape, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded passage: purpose first, then scope exclusion, then the scan-limit caveat, then a concrete example. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description proactively covers the truncation/completeness signal (complete=false), which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs. It does not describe the returned entry fields, leaving a small gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 both parameters (since, entry_type) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a usage example and clarifies the 'start date on or after' semantics, but nothing beyond what the schema already conveys.

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+resource: new entries added to the ARTG since a date, with concrete scope (medicines, biologicals, devices). It clearly delimits itself by reporting NEW entries only and excluding cancellations/variations. It does not, however, name any of the sibling tools (artg_entry, artg_list, artg_search) to differentiate against 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 clear context for when it applies (new registrations/listings in a date window) and explicitly when it does not (cancellations and variations are not dated and are not reported). No explicit alternative-tool routing is offered, so it stops 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.