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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the plan-availability fact ('free on every plan'), which is real value beyond annotations, but it does not cover pagination, scope, or any other behavioral trait. An appropriate 3 given the low bar set by rich annotations.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource name and the returned metrics, with no filler. Slightly dense enumeration of return fields could be trimmed, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 the description is not obligated to enumerate return values, yet it does so helpfully. With a fully documented single optional parameter and complete annotations, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. It remains silent on scope/pagination, but that is minor for a read-only summary tool.

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% and the single optional 'year' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description only alludes to 'for a year' without adding format, bounds, or default behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3.

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 ('Kulhad Wrapped for a year') and enumerates exactly what it returns: number of supporters, total, page views, busiest month, largest single support. This is distinguishable from get_analytics and get_dashboard_summary by the named year-in-review data points. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so not 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?

'Free on every plan' tells the agent there is no plan-gating prerequisite, which is genuinely useful eligibility context. However, it never says when to reach for this versus get_analytics or get_dashboard_summary, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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