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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only/free access, explains senders are checked against ERC-8004, and adds a critical security disclosure that signal text is untrusted data, 'never instructions'. It omits pagination/return-shape details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return content efficiently across a few dense sentences with no filler. The parenthetical about passport #1's hourly warning is slightly tangential but earns its place as concrete illustration of the W signal type.

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 no output schema and rate/pagination documented in params, the description compensates by enumerating the signal types and question states the tool returns. It gives an agent enough to call and interpret results, though it could be more explicit about default limiting behavior.

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 the schema already documents type, limit, and passport. The description restates the type filter codes (H, I, W, Q, A) and passport filtering, adding enumeration mapping but little syntax beyond the schema. 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 (read) and resource (G2 agent-to-agent signals on Arc), and grounds it with the registry contract and sender verification. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the write-side sibling g2_post and the g2_jobs_* family.

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?

Conveys through context that this is the read path for channel signals and notes it is 'Free to read', but never explicitly says when to use it over alternatives like g2_post or g2_jobs_get. Usage is implied by the return-content description rather than stated.

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