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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is the free-vs-VIP gating ('latest summary' vs 'full breakdown') – a genuine behavioral constraint an agent needs. It stops short of detailing result shape, pagination, or what happens if free-tier requests exceed one occupation, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core resource front-loaded. It could be tightened by folding the tier note into the same clause, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

No output schema and four undocumented parameters means the description should carry more weight; it explains the tier restriction but never clarifies what month or state do or what the aggregate statistics contain. For a 4-parameter query tool this leaves an agent under-informed about invocation.

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 0%, so all four parameters (visa, month, state, occupation) rely on the description for meaning. The description only gestures at occupation and 'pathway' and says nothing about the month (YYYY-MM) or state filters, leaving half the schema unexplained.

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 (return) and resource (aggregate invite-to-lodge and lodge-to-close duration statistics) with clear domain specificity. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_eoi_history or get_latest_overview, so an agent may be unsure which duration/history tool fits best.

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 implies scoping ('any one occupation and exact pathway') and notes a tier difference (free = latest summary, VIP = full breakdown), which is useful context. However, it never states when to choose this over get_eoi_history, get_latest_overview, or get_score_distribution, leaving selection partly to inference.

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