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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that returned records carry event key, cadence, target and status — useful since there is no output schema — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the payload fields an agent would care about. Nothing is redundant with the title and no sentence is wasted.

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 simple read-only, single-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and a documented parameter, the description covers what is returned and what scope it runs at. Only pagination/ordering expectations are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 single brandId parameter has 100% schema coverage including a clarifying description ('the project that runs the streak'). The tool description adds no further constraint on the identifier, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the work.

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 ('List') and resource ('a brand's streak programs') and enumerates the fields exposed (event key, cadence, target, status). It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the 'list' verb against siblings like get_streak_performance or get_streak_badge is unambiguous enough to select correctly.

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 brand-scoped framing implies the tool is used to enumerate programs for one brand, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as get_streak_performance for per-program metrics. Usage is only inferable from the verb and resource.

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