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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material context beyond them: the data provenance ('from the daily rollup', 'totals as of now') implies freshness lag, and it discloses the required `read` scope. It stops short of stating rate limits or response shape, so not a 5.

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, zero padding, and the leading sentence front-loads what the tool returns before moving to routing and auth prerequisites.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description gives only a loose sketch of the return ('totals', a compact summary) without field-level detail. Everything needed to invoke it correctly (no params, read scope, when to prefer it) is present, so it is nearly complete for a simple read 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms 'No parameters', which matches the empty schema and prevents an agent from guessing at filters.

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+resource+scope: a current-period org usage summary sourced from the daily rollup. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling spicrawl_usage ('windowed breakdown'), so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('quick how much have I used so far') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('use spicrawl_usage for a windowed breakdown'). Nothing is left to inference.

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