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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a critical behavioral nuance: 'Figures in one group apply only to that group', preventing misinterpretation of counts. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies how to interpret the returned data, which is valuable context.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then use cases, then a caveat about grouping. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description lists all the categories of information returned and gives clear usage guidance, which is comprehensive for an aggregate read tool. The output schema is present, so return structure is covered elsewhere. The only notable gap is the lack of parameter clarification, particularly for 'scope', but the schema partially addresses this, so overall it is complete enough.

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?

The description provides no information about the 'days' or 'scope' parameters. The schema covers 'days' with a description ('Window in days, both directions. Default 7.'), but 'scope' has no description, and the tool description does not compensate for that gap. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should at least mention that 'scope' filters between personal and workspace views, but it does not.

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: it 'returns the user's prioritised operational picture in one call' and enumerates the exact categories included. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly warning not to rebuild this from separate searches, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'what needs my attention', 'what should I do today', 'what am I waiting on'. It also gives a clear negative directive: 'Do not rebuild this from separate searches', which tells the agent when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No ambiguity remains about when this tool is appropriate.

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