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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated canonical URLs, but says nothing about ordering, deduplication, or how many URLs a month yields. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences with the core action and inputs front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's required/optional marking, but it is not wasteful enough to penalize further.

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 not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the unspecified month format for a 0%-coverage schema, which an agent must guess at before it can call the tool 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 carries the full burden for three parameters. It only names them ('month', with optional 'page' and 'limit') without adding format, range, or defaults — notably the month string format is never specified, which is the single most important detail for this tool.

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 ('List... canonical GhanaWeb article URLs') scoped to 'a discovered month', which clearly commits to enumerating article URLs rather than headlines or full articles. It hints at the relationship with ghanaweb_archive_months via 'discovered month' but never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'from a discovered month' implies a prerequisite (discover months first, presumably via ghanaweb_archive_months), which is a useful contextual cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of what to do if the month is unknown, leaving the workflow to inference.

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