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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: it includes why, status, and directional 7-day movement, and returns a rollup plus recent entries, which sets clear expectations about the response.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the definition and scope, then gives a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned (rollup, recent entries) and what kind of data is included. It could describe the response shape in more detail, but the schema covers filters and the annotations cover safety, making this adequate.

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% with all three parameters having enum values and descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds some context by listing source categories, but it does not materially extend the schema's meaning.

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 names the resource (decision log) and says it returns a rollup and recent entries, with a clear scope: every AI-proposed or automated change. The list of change types and the mention of 'what changed' make it distinct from sibling tools like get_business_events or get_action_status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: for 'what changed', 'decision log', and 'did my changes work'. It does not mention exclusions or name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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