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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: the default month behaviour and the note that results are scoped to what the viewer would see in the dashboard (permission-based visibility). It does not explain pagination behaviour or the result ordering, and the offset parameter goes unmentioned.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then parenthetical defaults, then the permission note. No filler, though the final dashboard clause is slightly indirect.

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 values needn't be explained. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations about pagination, the missing offset meaning and unspecified result ordering leave the agent short of what it needs to page through per-person cost data confidently.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does for two of three: month format 'YYYY-MM' with 'this month by default', and team ('optionally for one team'). The offset parameter is never explained, leaving pagination semantics undocumented anywhere.

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: per-person work and coding agent cost for a month, broken down tool by tool, optionally scoped to one team. That is clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_spend or get_customer_cost, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (cost per person, per month, per team) but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_spend, get_customer_cost, or forecast_spend. The 'optionally for one team' phrase hints at the filtering case but doesn't state exclusions.

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