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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a before/after delta mirroring the Proof page, but says nothing about the default/maximum window behavior, result size, or freshness 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 short sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second routes usage. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately and the schema covers the parameter. It stops short of clarifying the window's effect on results or how this delta view relates to neighboring visibility tools.

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 'days' parameter is fully documented with default (60) and maximum (180) in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about the window, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific resource (questions that started or stopped naming the brand) and a specific output shape (before and after), which is far more concrete than the bare name 'my_proof'. It does not name or contrast any sibling, so an agent must infer how it differs from my_visibility, my_question_history, or my_landscape.

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 gives explicit usage contexts via example questions ('is it working', 'what have we won', 'what did we lose'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, which matters here given the many overlapping my_* analysis tools.

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