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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pagination via nextCursor and the freshness caveat that missing metrics should be treated as unknown rather than zero. This is a meaningful addition that the annotations do not supply.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded and each carrying distinct information (what is returned, pagination handling, freshness constraint). No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not needed, and the description covers purpose, pagination and freshness. However, with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, it leaves the filtering/time-window/sort parameters undocumented, which is a real gap for a query tool.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of documenting them. It only names or implies cursor (nextCursor) and touches metrics, leaving days, sort, limit, scanId, search, brandId and targetId entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (Read) and resource (a tracked source's saved content, metrics and brief), and distinguishes itself from the refresh-style sibling with 'Does not refresh the source.' It stops short of naming the actual alternative (scan_intelligence_target) or contrasting with list_intelligence_targets, so differentiation is present but implicit.

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 constraint 'Does not refresh the source' hints that a scan tool should be used when fresh data is needed, but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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