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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the summary contents: counts by phase, blocked items, and most recently closed items. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or output structure, but with annotations present this is a solid addition.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by concise input guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the summary contains. It also covers the window input modes and default. It is nearly complete for a read-only summary tool, though it could mention repository scoping behavior more explicitly.

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 schema already documents parameter types, patterns, and bounds. The description adds value by stating the default window of 14 days and clarifying that callers should provide either days or from/to, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a delivery summary over a time window, including opened, worked-on, closed counts, blocked items, and recently closed items. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from potentially related siblings such as metrics_history or almost_done.

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 explains how to specify the window using either days or from/to, including the default of 14 days. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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