Latest evidence-led article

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-structured context: the article may predate today, must not be mislabeled as current analysis, and should be quoted rather than regenerated. It does not add rate limits or auth notes, but the staleness caveat is meaningful.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: identity and scope first, then a return-field enumeration, then usage constraints. The return-field list slightly duplicates the existing output schema, but the rest is tight and each instruction earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still gives an agent everything required to call and correctly report the result: identity, staleness caveat, and usage rules. Nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description correctly omits parameter discussion.

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?

Names a specific resource (the latest full-text Seiche editorial) and its scope, including the caveat that it may predate today. It distinguishes itself from sibling funding_stress_now by explicitly routing current-conditions queries there, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

States when to use it (quote the editorial), when to redirect (funding_stress_now for current funding conditions), and how to use the output (report publication and evidence dates, don't present an older edition as today's analysis). No condition is left to inference.

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