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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance about engagementScore being a raw decayed score that can be negative—information not present in annotations or schema. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects, though these are largely unnecessary given the read-only annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a critical clarifying note about engagementScore that prevents misinterpretation. Every word serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It explains the high-level purpose but omits key operational details like pagination (cursor, pageSize), filtering (botFilter, insiderFilter), rating thresholds (minRating/maxRating), and the meaning of activity windows (minPrior/maxPrior). It also doesn't describe the return fields beyond engagementScore. Given the complexity, the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.

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% and the tool has 13 parameters, so the description bears the full burden of explaining them. The description mentions no parameters at all—it only refers to an output field (engagementScore). While some parameters like 'search' and 'sortBy' are self-explanatory, others like 'maxPrior', 'minPrior', 'cursor', and 'insiderFilter' remain ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('previously engaged members whose recent activity has collapsed'), and an explicit purpose ('for building save lists'). It also distinguishes itself from sm_list_leaders by noting the engagementScore is raw and can be negative, unlike the leaders percentile. This clearly differentiates it from 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 provides a clear use case ('building save lists') and implicitly signals when this tool is appropriate (when members' activity has decayed). It distinguishes from sm_list_leaders via the score note, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools like sm_list_members or state conditions for not using this tool. Still, the context is clear without exclusions.

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