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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds substantial behavior: 'Read-only, recomputed live, and scoped to the caller — it never aggregates across accounts.' It also discloses edge-case handling (unknown statuses reported under 'unknown', cancelled tickets not counted in open/done, invoice overdue computed at read time). These traits are not derivable from the annotations and are highly valuable for an agent.

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?

Though the description is longer than typical, it is tightly structured: an opening summary, followed by usage guidance, then three distinct edge-case clarifications with no redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded summary gives immediate orientation.

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 covers all domains included, explains the tool's scope and read-only nature, and addresses subtle pitfalls (ticket cancellation, unknown status aggregation, invoice overdue timing). Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields; it provides the necessary context for selection and invocation completely.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it instead focuses on output semantics, which is acceptable here.

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 opens with 'One cross-domain rollup of the caller's own workspace' and enumerates the exact metric domains (council sessions, feedback, tickets, deals, invoices). It clearly differentiates from sibling per-domain tools by naming get_sales_analytics, get_ticket_projects, and list_invoices as alternatives, so the purpose is unmistakably specific.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it for a single how is this workspace doing answer' and directs to alternatives for deeper dives: 'use those ... to drill into whatever this surfaces.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing sibling tools directly.

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