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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable context: the content is 'moderated' and 'accuracy-gated', it is scoped to one company, and it hints at the Pro tier, all of which go beyond the structured 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that moves from the tier qualifier to the resource and the returned fields with no wasted words. It could name the alternative tool in the same breath, but it is well-sized and readable.

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 read-only, well-annotated, two-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, for whom, and what fields come back, which compensates for the absent output schema. It stops short of stating ordering, recency window, or empty-result behavior.

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 are already well documented in the schema (limit 1-12, listing accepts slug/name/ID/URL). The description adds only the 'one company' scope and does not clarify the limit default or pagination, so it does not exceed the baseline established by the schema.

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: recent moderated news headlines about one company, including the fields returned (dates, publishers, links). An agent can tell it fetches news rather than refreshes it, but the description never names refresh_listing_news as the mutation counterpart, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 implied by 'about one company' and 'the same accuracy-gated stories shown on the profile's news panel', which signals a read of already-moderated content. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of choosing this over refresh_listing_news or get_listing.

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