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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine scope constraint ("Returns only data visible to the linked Market Brew account"), but says nothing about what the summary contains or how 'unresolved' is defined.

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 tight sentences with no padding, the usage trigger front-loaded ahead of the data-scope caveat. Nothing extraneous, though the content itself is thin rather than dense.

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 should clarify what a 'summary' returns, and it doesn't. It does convey account-scoping and safety via annotations, but the parameter and result shape remain unexplained.

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?

There is one parameter (website) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention anywhere in the description. The description fails to compensate for the documentation gap, leaving the agent to guess what form the website argument should take.

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 (summarize) and resource (unresolved crawl seed errors), which an agent can distinguish from the 'export_' and 'list_' seed siblings. It stops short of explicitly drawing that boundary, leaving the agent to infer why summarize differs from export/list.

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?

"Use this when the user asks to summarize unresolved crawl seed errors" is circular – it restates the tool name rather than giving a real selection condition. No alternatives (export_deep_crawl_seed_errors, list_deep_crawl_seed_attempts) or when-not guidance is offered.

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