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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: it renders an interactive MCP app and returns a short text summary alongside the visual view, which tells the agent what output mode to expect.

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?

Front-loaded with what is shown and the range toggle, then usage guidance. Slightly long in the third sentence ('prefer calling this tool and rendering the interactive MCP app over describing the underlying rows in text'), but each sentence carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still tells the agent a text summary accompanies the visual. With annotations covering safety and a single well-documented parameter, the definition is nearly complete; only sibling differentiation is thin.

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 the single enum parameter and its default fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the toggle values but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (energy, mood, stress, soreness plus trend) and lives in the same namespace as list_wellbeing/update_wellbeing while clearly being the visual/aggregate view rather than the raw listing. An agent can tell it apart from list_wellbeing without opening a schema.

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 names the query class it serves ('how-I-have-been-feeling and subjective recovery questions') and instructs preferring the interactive MCP app over text descriptions of rows. It does not, however, contrast itself against the very close siblings list_wellbeing or show_recovery, which would have removed the remaining ambiguity.

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