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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the content boundary: only the short description FinPortal already displays is returned, never the full third-party announcement — telling the agent not to expect full-text content.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what fields come back, followed by the content limitation. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 description adequately conveys the return shape and content limit. However, the sole parameter is left unexplained and there is no statement about result ordering or how many announcements typically exist.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its default of 20, or the 50 cap. Pagination/result-size behavior is entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — listing stored Macedonian Stock Exchange announcement metadata — and names the returned fields (publication date, original link). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_seinet_filings or get_company_news.

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?

The description implies the tool is for MSE announcements but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many filing/news siblings. An agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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