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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful scope boundaries — 'Never notes or values' — and sketches the return content, but says nothing about defaults, limits, or ordering beyond what the schema states. Useful addition, not rich behavioral context.

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?

The lead clause front-loads what the tool returns, and the final sentence gives the use case. The middle sentence is a long run-on enumeration, but every clause maps to real returned data, so little is wasted; it could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly (counts per status, skipped/deferred steps, finished runs with start and end step). Scope exclusions and use cases are present, so an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return ordering and volume limits are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `days` (default seven, max 92) and `routine` fully documented in the schema. The description only implicitly gestures at date range and single-routine filtering via 'review a week' and 'each routine'; it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (a summary of runs over a recent period) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: per-routine completion status, most-skipped/deferred steps, and finished runs with start time and end step. That level of specificity separates it from siblings like list_runs or get_run, which return raw runs rather than an aggregate review.

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 concrete usage contexts: 'Use it to review a week, or to see which steps a routine could lose,' which tells the agent when aggregation is the right shape of answer. It does not name the alternative tools (list_runs, get_run) or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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