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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaning by disclosing the data categories returned (overdue/due-today tasks, unread notifications, upcoming reminders, public links, live embeds), which annotations cannot convey. No output schema exists, but the enumeration of return contents compensates 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?

Front-loaded with "Snapshot of the user's Decknote account" before the parenthetical enumeration, and capped with a one-line use case. The middle parenthetical is dense but every listed category maps to distinct returned data, so little is wasted.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly across all five content areas. An agent knows both what it will get back and when to reach for it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema shows. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Names the resource (the user's Decknote account) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains — plan/limits, boards, attention items, sharing, next steps. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_account or list_boards, which return one slice of the same data.

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?

"Useful at the start of a conversation about the user's work" gives a concrete trigger condition. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative aggregate calls it replaces (e.g. list_boards + list_notifications), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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