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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior not in the annotations: a default 30-day window and cross-folder coverage. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior relative to limit, or what fields each view record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment with zero filler; the scope and default are stated up front. It is terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a sentence, but no wording is wasted.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no ordering or return-shape information, the description leaves too much unspecified for a query tool an agent must call correctly. It does not say what a 'view' record returns, how results are ordered, or whether permission scoping applies.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. It supplies the default for 'days' (30), which the schema lacks, but says nothing about the 1-365 range, and 'limit' (1-200) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 the resource and shape of the result ('who opened which document') and its scope ('across all folders'), which separates it from siblings like list_documents or get_document_stats. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, and the operation is described as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over search, list_documents, or get_document_stats, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. At best the 'across all folders' scope implies a cross-folder audit use case.

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