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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are bucketed in the company timezone, and 'Counts are recorded events, not verified customer outcomes' warns about data provenance so an agent won't present them as verified results. It also reiterates that the call triggers no work.

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 metric inventory is front-loaded and each clause maps to a real counter, but it is one enormous run-on sentence that duplicates the title verbatim and buries the useful caveats at the tail. It would be stronger as a short purpose line plus a compact list.

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 reporting tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is counted but not the return shape (one row per day per stage?) or how the `days` window drives it. Adequate to identify the tool, insufficient to predict the response.

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% across all three parameters. The description never mentions the `days` window (enum 7/14/30/90), the `company` UUID, or what `environment` (staging/production) changes about the data returned, so it does not compensate for the empty 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 verb+resource is unambiguous ('Read daily counts for each stage of Summer's work') and the enumerated stages make the returned content explicit. It never names the many overlapping report siblings (summer_reports_cancellations, summer_reports_agent_timing, summer_reports_commitments), even though this funnel overlaps several of them, so an agent can't fully disambiguate from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives among the report family. 'Starts no work' tells the agent this is not a trigger for actions, but not which report to pick instead of a sibling.

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