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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are limited to a single public section; it says nothing about freshness, result count, or ordering. Adequate but thin over what the annotations supply.

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 with the scope constraint first and the dependency second. No filler.

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 a one-parameter read tool needs little else. It could still mention whether this returns the latest items only or paginates, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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% with the full slug list documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint beyond the schema: the value must be sourced from xda_sections rather than invented, which is actionable validation context.

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 (XDA headlines) and scopes it precisely to "one public section." It clearly is not the section-listing tool and routes to xda_sections, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling xda_news, leaving that ambiguity for the agent to resolve.

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 xda_sections" gives an explicit prerequisite and workflow ordering, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use this versus xda_news or xda_article.

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