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

Annotations already declare that this is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context such as the default window, but does not explain the basis of comparison, data source, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the core concept, and includes only useful additional information. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 an output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. The unexplained `projectId` parameter and lack of differentiation from sibling tools leave gaps for an agent selecting and invoking 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 0%. The description explains that `days` defaults to 7, which is helpful, but it does not describe the `projectId` parameter at all or state the allowed range for `days`. It only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 conveys that the tool reports winners and losers over a recent window, including what moved and what dropped. It does not explicitly name ranking or distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

It gives explicit usage scenarios: inspecting what moved, what dropped, or conducting a weekly review. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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