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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful extra context: it renders a panel to the human rather than returning machine data, and it is 'free,' which matters because several siblings (execute, web_search) incur cost.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and contents, followed immediately by the when-to-use clause. The section enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the panel surfaces.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain returns. It covers contents, trigger conditions, and cost, leaving only sibling-alternative routing unaddressed.

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?

One optional enum parameter at 100% schema coverage ('Default activity.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's section list loosely maps to the tabs but adds no format or default details beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Show the human an account panel') and enumerates exactly what the panel contains, making it clearly distinct from data-returning siblings like get_balance and list_calls — this renders a UI surface rather than returning raw data.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given: 'Use when they ask to see their account, usage, or approvals.' It does not name alternatives (e.g., get_balance for programmatic reads), so the boundary against overlapping siblings is left to inference.

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