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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior they cannot: it never browses live or starts gathering, and it may return one of four states (not_configured, gathering, ready, failed). It also flags pinned notes as untrusted content with an explicit instruction-safety warning, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 with the trigger condition, then the payload, then the constraints — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense, and the untrusted-notes caveat sits mid-sentence inside a long enumeration rather than being set off, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still names the payload sections and the possible status states, and it covers the safety caveat for untrusted notes. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly at conversation start is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining the consequence of overview_range — that the bundled overview already covers the requested range and a separate call is only needed for a different one. It still does not characterize reason or user_intent beyond the schema, so it is not a 5.

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 (returns stored company/product context, agent glossary, pinned notes, and activity overview) and enumerates the payload so an agent knows exactly what arrives. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_namespace_overview, so the two are distinguishable without opening either schema.

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 explicit timing ('call at the start of each conversation, after identifying the target namespace') and names the condition under which the sibling get_namespace_overview is required instead ('only needed for a different range'). Both the when and the alternative are stated, not implied.

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