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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is a weekly aggregation keyed on the Monday each week starts, with decided/refused/edited/share columns. It stops short of explaining what 'share' is a share of or how refusal/edit are counted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that moves from what the report measures to its columns to the parameter default, with no wasted filler. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but nothing is redundant.

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 must explain return values, and it does outline the columns and time granularity. However, key terms ('act and letter purpose', the denominator behind 'share') are left undefined, so an agent still can't fully interpret the result.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: 'weeks: how many weeks back, 12 by default' explains both the meaning and the default value for the sole parameter, fully compensating for the bare 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 tells you what data comes back (refusal/edit share of cards per week) rather than stating a clean verb+resource purpose, and it leans on unexplained internal jargon like 'by act and letter purpose.' It doesn't distinguish this report from siblings such as read_the_lost_reasons or where_the_work_stands, so an agent must infer the tool's role from the name 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-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The only usage-shaped content is the parameter default ('12 by default'), which is a schema detail, not selection guidance.

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