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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the denominator rules (only login members still shipping code), how linked identities are deduplicated, and that calls are attributed by repository slug or ?team= binding rather than the web switcher's last team. That attribution note materially affects result interpretation and is not derivable from schema or 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the report contents, then usage triggers, then edge-case semantics. Slightly long and the closing paragraph on call attribution is dense, but every sentence carries substantive information rather than filler.

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 return shape needn't be described, yet the description still enumerates what is reported, sets the default window, defines the population counted, and explains attribution — everything an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly.

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 both params are already documented, and the description restates the 30-day default and 1–90 clamp. It adds value by explaining what the repository param actually does semantically — binding the session to the owning team — which is more than the schema's mechanical wording.

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 and resource — reporting MCP adoption per team member — and is clearly differentiable from the adjacent get-ai-adoption-tool by its explicit MCP focus. The opening sentence 'Who on the team is actually using the Coderbuds MCP' plus the enumerated contents (invocations, per-member usage, per-tool counts, nudge list) make the output scope unambiguous.

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 trigger phrasings ('who is using the MCP', 'is the team on the MCP yet', finding who needs setup instructions) plus eligibility rules for who counts. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as get-ai-adoption-tool, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the when-to-use guidance is clear and concrete.

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