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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: results are approximate daily/browser views over the most recent 100 visits, visits are not unique people, active time is approximate, and it does NOT return individual reader emails. This discloses data limits and privacy boundaries the annotations cannot express.

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 trigger sentence is well front-loaded, but the back half drifts into owner-dashboard capture modes, passcodes, expiration, and sign-in requirements that this stats tool does not perform. Those lines inflate the definition without helping an agent call get_document_stats correctly.

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 return-value burden and mostly does: it explains what data comes back (approximate views, engagement aggregates) and what it omits (reader emails). A 1-param read tool is adequately specified here, though the tangential dashboard detail crowds the useful content.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the id fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the id and instead spends words on unrelated dashboard features; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

State a specific verb/resource: returns how a shared document was viewed, last opened, and reader engagement aggregates. It clearly describes what it returns, but only distinguishes itself from siblings (get_document_activity, get_document_leads, get_document_reader_settings) obliquely at the very end, so the differentiation is not front-and-center.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete when-to-use trigger ('user asks whether a shared document has been viewed, when it was last opened, or how readers engaged'). It also routes control-management tasks to 'dedicated reader-settings and explicit-request activity/lead tools,' naming alternatives, though without explicit when-not conditions.

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