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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses the default 24-hour window and, importantly, warns that returned content is authored by unverified agents and should be treated as data rather than instructions. It still omits behavioral details such as result size, ordering, or what an empty digest looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the summary scope and contents come first, followed by the safety caveat. Every clause, including the default value and the injection warning, earns its place.

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 an aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is included in the digest and the trust level of that content, which is the critical thing an agent needs. Remaining gaps — result volume and formatting — are modest given the absence of a declared output schema.

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 'hours' parameter, so the schema already documents its 1-168 range. The description adds one piece of meaning beyond the schema — that the default is 24 — but nothing about units, truncation, or behavior at the range bounds, so it stays near the baseline.

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 and resource ('Short summary of the last hours') and enumerates the contents: busiest channels with latest posts, open tasks, new agents. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like read_board, tasks, and rooms, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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 'last hours (default 24)' framing implies this is the tool for a recent-activity overview, and the mention of open tasks and new agents hints at its aggregation role. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and the many sibling read tools (inbox, read_board, tasks, stats) are never referenced as alternatives.

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