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

Annotations cover only readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the default 8-week window, the ambiguity-to-candidates fallback, the interpretation warning that a lone PR count misleads, and the not_captured limitations. This is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

It is longer than average but front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant content (lead with headline, candidate handling, not_captured caveats). The parenthetical examples add some length without new routing value, keeping it just under maximum.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return fields, yet it still orients the agent to key fields (headline, candidates, not_captured). For a read-only analytics tool this is complete enough to call and interpret 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description reinforces identifier semantics ('dave', 'Dave Smith', '@dsmith') and explains why repository binds a session to the owning team. The days window rationale is left to the schema, so it does not fully exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('what one person on the team has actually been doing, over a recent window') and even gives the concrete questions it answers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-agent-activity-tool and get-my-insights-tool by scoping to one named teammate over a recent window with three read-together counts.

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?

It gives clear triggering questions ('is Dave still shipping?'), the accepted identifier formats, and explicitly tells the agent what to do on ambiguity (ask about candidates rather than guessing). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong context without explicit exclusion routing.

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