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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond annotations by clarifying temporal scoping: 'pending_cards is the LIVE open queue' while 'activity_runs and approval_velocity are the last N days only.' This helps the agent understand exactly what data will be returned.

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 efficient and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose before detailing scope and usage. Each sentence adds useful information, though the sentence listing output examples is somewhat redundant with the opening clause and could be trimmed without losing much.

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 snapshot tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, how the time windows behave, and when to use it. It does not describe the response structure or formatting, but the enumerated outputs and scoping details are sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of `days` by repeating that it affects only activity_runs and approval_velocity, and mentions pending_cards includes cards older than `days`, adding minor semantic value without going beyond the schema's own clarification.

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 verb and resource: 'Get a real-time snapshot of team output volume, pending approvals, and founder load.' It further enumerates concrete outputs like 'cards per agent, approval velocity, oldest pending items, and load trends,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling reporting tools such as get_activity_health or get_agent_performance.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'detect if the founder is being overwhelmed, if agents are producing too much or too little, or if cards are piling up without action.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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