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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavioral facts beyond them: the 'stopped: true' page-view-cap condition that limits reads to 'waiting', and that 'hidden' steps are owner-hidden. It also enumerates every returned kind, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 use case is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a single enormous paragraph enumerating seventeen kinds in unformatted running text, which is slow to parse. The content is mostly load-bearing given no output schema, but a bulleted structure would deliver the same information far more efficiently.

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?

For a read-only, one-parameter counts tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, the full return vocabulary, the stopped/hidden edge cases, and where to go for underlying records. Nothing an agent needs to call it and interpret the result is missing.

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% for the single 'host' parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description adds that host must be one of the workspace's sites and points to get_brand as the way to discover them, which the schema does not say. No format or syntax detail is added beyond the schema's example.

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 opens with a specific trigger ('when the user asks what to do next on a site') and quoted user utterances, then states exactly what is returned: counts of next steps by kind, as the dashboard's 今日やること lists them. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_analytics_summary or get_site_overview because it is framed around action items rather than metrics.

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 explicit when-to-use signals in the form of real user phrasings in Japanese and English, and routes drill-down questions to the right siblings ('get_answer_check_results holds the questions and answers, get_search_performance the queries...'). It does not state an explicit when-not-use case beyond the 'Counts only' framing.

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