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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'static content' and 'no rate limit' which are useful beyond annotations. No contradictions; it complements the structured data well.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and safety traits. Highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, and its operational characteristics (read-only, static, no auth/rate limit). Nothing is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'no arguments,' which is redundant with the empty schema but adds clarity for an agent that might expect parameters. No further compensation needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 clearly states the tool returns the phases of a standard 60-day zRev engagement, including what happens, what is delivered, and when first results appear. This is a specific verb (Returns) and resource (phases) that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other topics like about_zrev or estimate_roi.

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: when a user asks how an engagement works, how long it takes, or what they would receive and when. It also adds context about being read-only, static, with no auth or rate limit, which helps an agent decide to use it without unnecessary concerns.

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