whats_new

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: ordering by newest first, aggregation by source, and provenance from weekly incremental harvests. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences deliver the core behavior, ordering, grouping, data provenance, and intended use case with no filler. Each clause adds information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 query tool with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: time window, ordering, grouping, and source. It could be more explicit about when to choose this over sibling tools and about the limit parameter, but these are moderate gaps rather than severe ones.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the 'days' parameter via 'last N days' and the 'source' parameter via 'counts by source', but it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter semantics beyond its schema default. Partial compensation, 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 clearly identifies the resource (records in the index) and the temporal scope (last N days), and adds distinctive details like 'newest first' and 'counts by source' that separate it from generic lookup or search siblings. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intended behavior is clear enough.

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 phrase 'raw material for a digest' implies when to use this tool, and 'from the weekly incremental harvests' situates it in a specific data flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as search_reports or get_fulltext for other needs.

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