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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are aggregated over a window and what is aggregated, but adds nothing on caching, result size, or 'all' corpus behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded before the return summary. The output enumeration is slightly list-like but each item earns its place by signaling what an agent can extract.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, yet it cleanly conveys purpose, scope, and use case. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation, though cross-tool routing detail is absent.

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%, so both parameters (days, government_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the 'all' sentinel and 1-365 range. The description's 'recent window' wording adds no syntax or default detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (meeting-activity stats for a government) and enumerates the three outputs (total count, per-day map, category breakdown). This is clearly an aggregate-stats tool distinct from list/search siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('how active has X been lately?') that tells the agent when to reach for this instead of a list/search tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, keeping it short of a 5.

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