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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the day-window bound, which is real value, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens when nothing matches in the window.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and window, then appends ordering and the optional filter. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the core essentials (what, time window, sort order) are present. However, with no sibling differentiation against top_listings/search_directory and no coverage of the limit parameter or result size, an agent still has to open the schema to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only partially does. It conveys the days window and the existence of a kind filter but never lists the enum values (server, client, product, skill, plugin, rules, eval) and omits the limit parameter entirely, leaving two of three parameters under-documented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Listings added to RUAGENTIC'), plus scope (last N days, 1–90) and ordering (newest first). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like top_listings or search_directory, which also surface listings.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for recently added items, and 'optionally one kind' hints at filtering. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over top_listings or search_directory, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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