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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's 'Read-only' restates that. The real added value is spelling out what comes back (ranked gaps, per-agent readiness, pending-review counts), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of explaining ranking logic or result size behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the ranked-gaps payload before secondary counts. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations and is the only wasted clause.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the necessary burden by enumerating the return categories and the ranking property. Only minor gaps remain: no note on what an individual gap record contains or whether results are scoped to a single brand.

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 single parameter max_gaps is fully documented in the schema, including default 8 and max 20, so the description need not repeat it. With 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra semantics such as how truncation affects ranking.

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 ('Reads what the user's FeedSquad brain (Stash) wants to know next') and enumerates the payload: ranked missing/weak areas, per-agent readiness, and pending-review counts. That makes it distinguishable from get_brand_context and tell_stash, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'wants to know next' implies a planning/prioritization moment, which hints at when to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing versus adjacent tools like get_brand_context or tell_stash. Usage must be inferred from the described return content.

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