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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide; its remaining content is really return-value framing, which the output schema already covers.

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 is being broken down before the use case. The source enumeration is longer but each item maps to a distinct channel, so it earns its length; only slight trimming is possible.

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 simple two-optional-param read with a full output schema, annotations covering safety and a schema covering inputs, the description is nearly sufficient. The only material gap is routing against the overlapping analytics/support siblings, which it never addresses.

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%, so the 'from'/'to' date parameters are already documented with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and semantics in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters or default date scoping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('break approved support down by where it came from') and enumerates the concrete source categories, so an agent knows exactly what dimension is being attributed. It does not name a sibling such as get_analytics or get_support to differentiate itself, which caps it below a 5.

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?

The second sentence gives a clear use context ('Use this to answer which channel is actually working'), which is a genuine scenario statement rather than a restated purpose. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_analytics), so it is not a 5.

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