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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context like 'newest first' and 'Tenant-aware', but does not disclose the return format, whether full tutorials or summaries are returned, or potential limitations. This is adequate but with gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides usage guidance and a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, order, tenant awareness, and a usage scenario. The input schema documents the two optional parameters. However, without an output schema, the exact return shape (e.g., fields, pagination) is not clarified, leaving minor gaps for a fully self-contained definition.

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 50%: 'days' is described, but 'limit' is not. The description does not add parameter-level guidance, though 'limit' is self-explanatory and 'days' is already documented. Since the description provides a recency context implying the 'days' parameter, it barely meets the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('most recently published tutorials'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_tutorials and list_tutorials_by_category by focusing on recency.

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?

Explicit positive use cases are provided: 'discover what's new on the site' and 'surface fresh content for aggregator / what's new this week agent loops.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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