Read instance announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context about what announcements contain but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or handling of already-dismissed announcements beyond what the schema parameter hints.

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 short sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource, the second gives the practical trigger for use. No filler or redundancy, and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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 tool with zero required parameters, a well-documented schema, and safety annotations, the description covers intent and appropriate use. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, but given the low complexity and lack of required inputs, the available context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (account and include_read) are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('Announcements from the people who run your instance') and the concrete content types (downtime, rule changes, moderation decisions). It is specific about the verb-resource pairing, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_instance_info.

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 'Worth checking when something stops working' gives a clear, concrete trigger for when an agent should call this tool. It does not mention exclusions or name alternatives, but the usage context is more specific than the bare verb-plus-resource pattern seen in many sibling definitions.

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