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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety burden is largely lifted. The description still adds meaningfully by disclosing that results are published/sourced figures with a link per benchmark, signaling static authoritative reference data rather than computed output. It does not discuss result format or size, but that gap is minor for a static lookup.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to use it. Content is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 one optional enum parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed to invoke correctly. The only shortfall is that no output schema exists and the description does not describe the returned shape beyond 'source link'.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes one step further by glossing the enum values: 'rebriefing' is clarified as time spent re-briefing AI and 'rework' as rework of AI output. That semantic expansion genuinely helps an agent choose a topic value, though 'all' and 'accounts_per_person' are left to the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Returns published benchmarks') with the exact subject matter enumerated: accounts per account manager, time re-briefing AI, rework of AI output. An agent can tell this is a read-only reference lookup, distinct from siblings like capacity_check (computing your own capacity) and add_to_benchmark (writing to the set).

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?

'Use when the user asks what is normal for agencies' gives a clear triggering context. It does not, however, name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. 'use capacity_check instead when the user wants their own numbers'), which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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