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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact returned fields, the default threshold of 7, and the fact that the value is operator-set or default. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return semantics, tool routing, and audience. Every sentence adds distinct value; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the default behavior, the relationship to sibling tools, and who the intended caller is. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the companyId parameter is already clearly documented as the company ID with a membership requirement. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema carries the full meaning.

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 precise operation (get the founder's attention budget), specifies the returned fields (max_pending_cards, is_default), and gives concrete query examples. It also differentiates itself from get_team_pulse and get_company, which prevents confusing it with sibling tools.

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 is explicit about when to call it: it is 'the only tool that has' the attention budget, should be called directly, and is NOT in company settings or get_company. It also connects it to get_team_pulse's overload_signal, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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