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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningfully on top: paginated retrieval, 'No writes or saved learning', and the analytic caveat that rolling snapshots do not establish causal lift. It does not describe pagination mechanics or result volume limits, which is a minor gap.

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-loaded and factually dense, but the opening 'Preferred after reading change-review' is awkward and presupposes context, and the trailing MCP/credits boilerplate ('use the input object for tool arguments', 'use no Adrails credits') does not help tool selection.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with a nested input object, it covers purpose, scoping constraints, pagination, mode selection, safety ('no writes') and the interpretive limit of the data. An agent can call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description reinforces the load-bearing semantics: accountId must be an exact selected account, actionId optionally narrows to one action, limit/offset paginate, and responseMode's two values are given distinct behavioural meanings. It adds value beyond the schema rather than restating it.

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 and resource: review recorded actions with application dates, baseline/observation eligibility, and outcome classification (pending/failed/skipped vs measured). It clearly separates this from a raw action list, though it never names a sibling (e.g. actions_recent) so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives real routing guidance: 'Preferred after reading change-review', scope to an exact selected account and optionally one action, and a precise rule for responseMode=answer (diagnostic/outcome review, verification requests) vs evidence (explicitly requested extra deliverable, multi-account/multi-page collection). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, keeping it below 5.

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