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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so "Changes nothing" is largely redundant. The genuinely additive disclosures are behavioral: a hard 60-day lookback window and the fact that only *approved* work is surfaced, both of which shape how an agent interprets empty results. It stops short of saying anything about result volume, grouping, or pagination.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded before the follow-up action. The trailing "Changes nothing" is short enough to justify its place as a safety reassurance.

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, parameter-light discovery tool with an output schema absent but annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential frame: what population is listed, the time boundary, and the next action. The remaining gap is that an agent gets no hint of result shape or what makes two entries distinct when the same task recurred multiple times.

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%, so the description carries the burden and says nothing about `company` or `environment`. Mitigating factors keep this above a 2: only two required params, both with self-documenting names, and `environment` ships an inline enum, so the schema still constrains usage adequately. A sentence on whether `company` is the caller's own company would have earned a 4.

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 ("List approved work") plus precise scope qualifiers: last 60 days, and only work not covered by a catalogue action. The clarification "free-form tasks and raw API calls" pins down the payload exactly, and "no catalogue action covers" implicitly contrasts with summer_actions_catalog_list, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

The description names a downstream path ("Each can become a company action with actions.company.from_run"), which tells the agent what to do next but not when to choose this tool over siblings like summer_runs_list or summer_actions_catalog_list. Usage is implied by the scope wording rather than stated as an explicit trigger or exclusion.

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