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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the 25-agent cap, the 24-hour default for `since`, and the notable edge behavior that unknown agents return zero counts rather than an error. It stops short of describing ordering or how the Markdown block is structured.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, but the purpose, scope, lifecycle states, time window, and return artifacts are front-loaded in a logical order with no filler clauses. The parenthetical enumerations make it long but every element conveys contract-relevant information.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably: state counts, new refutations/decays, receipt links, and a Markdown block. Only minor gaps remain, such as the `since` timestamp format and the overall response envelope, which are small relative to the tool's modest complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it establishes the 25-agent limit, the semantics of `since` as a time cutoff with a 24-hour default, and what happens for unknown agent identifiers. The one remaining gap is the expected format of `since` (ISO timestamp vs relative), which the schema's bare maxLength=40 string does not clarify.

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 pairs a specific verb/resource ('Team digest (dg-1)') with an explicit enumeration of the returned content: per-agent counts of public claims across six named lifecycle states plus newly refuted/decayed items. That level of specificity distinguishes it from siblings like get_track_record or search_claims without needing to name them.

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?

'display only' implies a read-oriented, presentation use case and the phrasing suggests it is for summarizing a team's claim portfolio. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_track_record, search_claims, or get_decay_index, and no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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