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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states the returned fields, including the nuance that quality/approval is 'as_of = last run,' and 'Returns' implies a read-only audit with no mutation. It could go further on pagination or flag semantics, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 carry the action, the return payload, and the usage philosophy with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded before the advisory sentence.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a read-only audit tool with no output schema: it lists the main return fields and gives a clear use case. Minor gaps are the meaning of the returned 'flags' and possible pagination/scope limits, plus the two overlapping company-id parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; per the baseline this earns a 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The description also does not clarify the relationship between companyId and company_id, but it does not mislead.

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 a specific action and resource: audit all agent activities for staleness, business outcome alignment, and cross-agent overlap. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related sibling tools such as get_agent_performance or get_agent_outcome_panel.

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 description gives explicit direction on when to use it: 'Use this to apply first principles: question every activity before optimizing it.' This provides clear context for tool selection, though it does not name alternatives or state exclusion criteria.

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