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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered by date added (not relevance), and the corpus is scoped to what AgingResearch.News has read. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics, though the cursor param schema does.

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?

Dense but front-loaded on the usage trigger, with the search_papers routing placed at the end. It is somewhat long and repeats the filter story across two sentences, but every sentence carries useful routing or scoping information.

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 12-parameter, zero-required list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers trigger, ordering, corpus scope and the sibling alternative. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not summarize the default page size or return shape (no output schema exists).

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%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that filters mirror search_papers and that author resolves names or ids, but adds little beyond what the structured fields already state, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (papers), plus the defining scope: the newest papers by the date they were added. It names concrete filters (field, study type, body system, author) and distinguishes itself from search_papers, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks what is new') and gives the counter-case ('For the papers that best answer a question, use search_papers'). It also supplies concrete use cases (journal club shortlist) and notes author accepts a name or an author_id from get_paper.

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