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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: results are newest first, and days caps the lookback window with a maximum of 90. This is meaningful additional context.

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 tightly written sentences place the core behavior first, then the trigger context, then the critical days constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the key trigger, ordering, and time-window constraint. It could mention what limit does or how category interacts with the results, but those are partly documented in the schema itself.

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 only 33%, with the category parameter already explained in the schema. The description adds semantics for days (caps lookback, max 90), but says nothing about limit or category behavior. Partial compensation for the low coverage, but not complete.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: lists the papers Pith reviewed most recently, newest first. It also clearly separates this from general search tools by emphasizing recency and recency-based ordering.

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 description explicitly says when to call this tool: when the user asks what is new, notable, or recently reviewed in a field or overall. It does not name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the trigger context is clear enough.

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