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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and openness are covered. The description adds "current" (recency of the feed) and "public section" (scope restriction), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, 3 is appropriate.

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?

One compact sentence with zero waste; the resource and the parameter constraint are both front-loaded. Nothing extraneous, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The description covers purpose, scope, and the parameter-source prerequisite, leaving only minor unstated details like ordering or result count.

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 coverage is 100% and the slug list is fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by tying the section value to a companion tool (collider_sections), telling the agent where valid values originate rather than just repeating the list.

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 ("Current Collider headlines") and scopes it to "one public section," so an agent can distinguish it from collider_article or collider_news as a section-scoped headline feed. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling collider_news, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"section must come from collider_sections" gives a clear prerequisite that routes the agent to the correct discovery tool first. However, it does not state when to prefer this over collider_news versus collider_article, so there is a small inference gap.

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