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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent safe read. Description adds role-based access constraints (mentor/mentee participant roles, always available actions) that go beyond annotations. Lacks error behavior or return format, but meaningful context added.

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-loads the core purpose and packs action constraints efficiently into one sentence. The dense parenthetical list is hard to scan but no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers action selection and role restrictions needed to invoke correctly. It omits return content and error cases, but those are secondary for a stats read.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It defines each action's meaning and maps membershipId/unseen applicability per action. It leaves 'unseen' undefined and doesn't elaborate membershipId beyond optional/not accepted.

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 'Read' and resource 'mentorship stats', and enumerates the action values. It does not name or contrast with sibling tools, but the action enum itself distinguishes scope.

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 per-action role requirements and parameter applicability (e.g., mentor_moments self-only, membershipId not accepted). No guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling query tools, so not a full 5.

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