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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable detail about the output (status and last-sent time) and confirms the scope (one website), going beyond the annotation-provided safety traits. It does not cover error conditions, but that is not critical for a simple getter.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that directly conveys the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and uses plain language, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the return value (enabled status and last-send timestamp). It also clarifies the scope (one website) and the optional parameter behavior, making the tool complete for its intended purpose.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (website_id) with a clear description and optionality. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond restating the website scope, which is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to report whether the daily email summary is enabled and the timestamp of the last send, scoped to a specific website. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_daily_report.

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 description implies usage for reading the daily report setting, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_daily_report or when to prefer this tool over get_analytics. The phrasing is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct use case, but explicit guidance is absent.

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