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 freshness ('Current') and scope ('public section') context, but says nothing about return volume, pagination, or ordering; with annotations carrying the safety burden a 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, stating the resource, the scope, and the input constraint in one pass.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description gives purpose, scope, and the input-source rule, leaving only minor gaps like freshness window 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates documented section slugs, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the constraint ('must come from salon_sections') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's 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 Salon headlines') and scope ('for one public section'), so an agent knows it returns a section-scoped headline list. It does not explicitly name siblings like salon_article or salon_news to sharpen the distinction, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 clause 'section must come from salon_sections' tells the agent where to obtain valid inputs, effectively routing it to a sibling first. No explicit when-not-use guidance is given, but the dependency is a clear usage rule.

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