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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses parallel fan-out to each approved app, graceful degradation when an app lacks get_today_list or errors, the exact sort order (urgent, attention, info), and the per-app summary. The partial-failure and ordering behavior is the kind of detail an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then triggers, then mechanism and return shape, then read-only assurance, then the parameter note — a sensible progression with little waste. The final min_severity sentence is largely redundant with the schema description, costing a bit of tightness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (one list sorted urgent/attention/info plus a per-app summary). For an open-world aggregation tool with one optional parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented, including its default and threshold semantics, so the schema carries the weight. The description's closing sentence restates the same threshold behavior rather than adding new meaning, so this lands at the baseline.

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?

"What needs doing today across the Oskivo apps connected to this shop" names a specific aggregate resource and scope, and the follow-up sentence explains the mechanism: it fans out to get_today_list on every approved app. An agent can tell exactly what this returns (one merged, severity-sorted list plus a per-app summary) without opening the schema.

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 gives concrete invocation triggers — the merchant asking "what needs doing today?", "anything I should worry about?", what is urgent, or a daily briefing — which is strong when-to-use guidance. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, though with no sibling tools there is nothing to route against, so the gap is minor.

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