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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the remaining disclosure is about breadth and cost. The description adds that this is a fan-out across all accounts in one call and that skip exists 'to answer faster', which usefully signals latency trade-offs. It stops short of saying how much data comes back or how findings are ordered.

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 leading '[Analysis]' tag and the 'what needs attention today, across EVERY connected account' framing are front-loaded correctly. The middle enumeration is long but each entry maps to a real finding category; the only redundancy is retitling categories already implied by the parameter enum.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it appropriately spends its words on scope and coverage instead. Together with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of any latency/result-size expectation leaves a small gap for a multi-account fan-out tool.

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 100% and each of the three parameters (skip, accounts, older_than_hours) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — it never mentions skip, account scoping, or the 24h default — so it does not exceed that baseline.

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 verb and resource ('what needs attention today') and enumerates exactly which findings are aggregated, plus the key scope differentiator: across EVERY connected account in one call. That scope sentence alone separates it from single-domain siblings like unshipped_orders_report, returns_list and offers_summary.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ('what needs my attention', 'morning check', 'what should I do first') and a clear funnel — go deeper with the tool named next to each finding. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g. 'don't use this for a single account deep dive; use X'), so the agent must infer when a sibling is the better first call.

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