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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mode contract (get_analytics requires cohortId), which is useful, but says nothing about return shape or analytics semantics; adequate rather than rich.

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 the purpose, then the usage contract. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 read-only query tool with annotations already covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose, both modes, and all parameters. Only the shape/content of get_analytics output is left unaddressed, which is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does: it documents action's two values, marks phase as an optional filter, and states cohortId is required for get_analytics. All three parameters get semantic meaning beyond their bare enum/type declarations.

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+resource ("Read cohorts") and enumerates the two action modes with their scope, so the agent knows this is the read side of the cohorts domain versus cohorts_manage. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: use action="list" for listing (with an optional phase filter) or action="get_analytics" when a cohortId is available. This routes invocation correctly, though it names no alternative tool for the write/other-cohort needs.

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