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

The readOnly/closed-world annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds something they don't: an access restriction ('owners only') and the composition of the returned data. It doesn't mention aggregation behavior (e.g. what happens for team members with no activity), but the added context is real.

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?

A single sentence with the metrics front-loaded and the scope qualifiers trailing, no filler. The dense comma list is slightly hard to parse but earns its space.

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 no output schema, listing the returned metrics is exactly the right compensation, and the permission note covers the main call-time risk. Missing only edge-case behavior such as how periods with no data or multiple brands are handled.

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 period values ('week' / 'month') are stated, matching the enum, and the owners-only clause touches permissions. The `at` and `brand` parameters are left entirely to the schema, which already documents both, so the description adds little beyond baseline for a 67% coverage 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?

The description names the resource (team results) and enumerates the exact metrics returned per person: requests closed, points, median minutes to first reply, messages sent. That is specific enough to separate it from get_my_standing, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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 states the scope ('this week or this month') and a caller restriction ('owners only'), which implies when the tool applies. But it never says when to use it instead of get_my_standing or set_scoreboard, so the agent must infer the alternative routing.

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