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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a read of 'one project right now', it mirrors the chat's start-of-turn read, and it details the returned content (the app's index breakdown and situation brief). It does not discuss error handling or freshness guarantees beyond 'right now', but for a read-only tool with annotations the added context is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists the components and alternatives in a logical flow. It is somewhat dense with nested parentheticals, but every sentence contributes to understanding what is returned or where to go next. It could be tightened slightly, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a fully documented single parameter, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content and usage. It does so thoroughly: it describes the app's index contents (menu places, agents, connections, waiting cards, owner-only actions) and the situation brief (stage, week, numbers, deeper via situation_read). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the single 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema (id or exact name, optional for single-project accounts). The description reinforces that it reads 'one project' but adds no parameter-specific syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb 'Reads' and resource 'the app's index' and 'the brief of the business's situation', and it distinguishes from siblings by naming place_open, agent_open, agents_read, waiting_read, and get_overview. It gives a concrete mental model of what the index contains, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly says the tool is used 'as Marsell's chat reads it at the start of every turn', establishing when to call it. It then routes the agent to alternatives: 'Open a place with place_open, an agent with agent_open, every agent with agents_read, the cards with waiting_read. A quick daily look is get_overview.' This covers when to use this tool versus deeper or quicker alternatives.

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