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 covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data is from TerraVault's own records, every line carries its source and read date, and the window caps at 7 days.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: identity, payload contents, return behavior. The 'Mary's Desk: TerraVault's short daily update' opening is slightly branded overhead but also establishes the product context, and the payload enumeration comes before the default-handling note.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only digest, the description covers what the content is and how much is returned by default. It hints at output shape ('every line names its source and the date it was read'), though it does not say whether the digest is grouped by state or section, which would help an agent parse the response.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces it by stating the default (latest day) and the ceiling ('up to the last 7'), clarifying the semantics of magnitude in a way the schema's min/max alone does not convey as naturally.

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 the concrete contents: licenses added/removed from state lists since the prior update, new California recalls, and California's month-to-date license report, plus the default lookback. That is a specific verb-and-resource picture, not a restatement of the opaque name 'marys_desk'. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like check_recall or state_license_report, which overlap in subject matter.

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?

Framing it as a 'short daily update' and 'Returns the latest day by default' implies it is the digest entry point rather than a lookup, which is useful implied usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over check_recall for a single recall or state_license_report for a full state list — the agent must infer the routing.

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