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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It adds the time-window concept and the dashboard-summary scope, but nothing extra about rate limits, caching, or data freshness—acceptable when annotations already cover safety.

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?

One tightly worded sentence front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the included metrics in a clear parenthetical. There is zero 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?

An output schema is present, and the description succinctly states what the tool returns (a dashboard summary with listed metrics) and exposes the time-window semantics. Combined with the schema's param and returned structure, nothing needed for correct invocation 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%, with the single parameter 'days' fully documented (min, max, default). The description's phrase 'recent time window' merely reinforces the schema without adding new constraints or behavioral rules, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get a dashboard summary' and enumerates the exact metrics (lead counts, conversion rate, call volume, top agents, business outcomes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_usage or list_recent_calls, which have different scopes and data shapes.

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 gives clear context: use when you want a high-level dashboard summary over a recent window. Though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name a sibling tool, the context is specific enough for an agent to select it over single-call or detailed-report tools.

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