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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive safety, so the burden is low, but the description adds a critical caveat: the total counts every record including extensions and defended cases, not just oppositions the owner started. This prevents a common misinterpretation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the result, the second clarifies the counting semantics, and the third routes to the sibling. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter stats tool with full safety annotations, the description explains what the counts include and exclude and where to go for more detail. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the count categories are specified, so no critical usage information 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 covers owner_name and year; description reinforces 'one owner' but offers no additional meaning for the limit parameter. With 67% coverage, the description provides modest value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented limit.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns a compact TTAB history for one owner') and enumerates the exact count categories, making it clear what the tool produces. It also names the sibling get_owner_ttab_enforcement, which helps distinguish scope.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with get_owner_ttab_enforcement, noting that the sibling covers date ranges and the marks and classes challenged. This tells an agent when to prefer the sibling without ambiguity.

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