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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral content by stating exactly what the summary includes: announcement counts by kind, the 20 latest announcements, and newly added law texts. It does not explain the time-window behavior or whether counts respect the 'days' input, but it goes well beyond restating annotations.

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?

The English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, naming the action and outputs immediately. However, the identical content is repeated in French, roughly doubling the length without adding information for an agent that already understands either language.

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 one-parameter, read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned content. It is incomplete because the sole parameter, its default lookback, and its upper bound are absent, which is critical for an agent to 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?

The tool has one parameter, 'days', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never names or explains it. The word 'recent' is not tied to the default of 7 days or the maximum of 90 days, leaving the only invocation control undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb, 'summarise', and a specific resource, 'recent Tunisian official journal (JORT) activity', then enumerates the outputs: counts by kind, the 20 latest announcements, and newly added law texts. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools such as search_announcements or search_law.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent must infer from the word 'recent' that this is an overview tool rather than a targeted search tool, and the sibling tools search_announcements and search_law are never mentioned as alternatives.

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