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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining the semantics of each `kind` value, including that `window_pending` means nothing is running yet and `window_closed` means the route is now cancellation — crucial context for interpreting results.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a compact enumerated taxonomy. The backtick formatting makes the state machine scannable; no filler text.

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 burden of explaining returns, and it does cover only the `kind` field — it says nothing about other fields on a deadline (dates, marks, parties) or ordering/volume of results. Adequate for the taxonomy, but incomplete as a stand-in for a missing output schema.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's discussion of `kind` applies to returned data rather than inputs, but nothing about input semantics is missing.

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 resource and scope: renewals and closing opposition windows belonging to 'this user'. It is clear what the tool surfaces, but it never names or contrasts with the adjacent sibling `opposition_window`, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the two from the description 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 statement of when to call this versus `opposition_window`, `my_watches`, or `my_conflicts`. The `kind` taxonomy explains what results mean, not when the tool should be selected, so usage is left entirely to inference.

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