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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior (per introducer), the work-vs-warmth framing, and the return shape (each introducer with the people they introduced and client counts). No contradiction with the readOnly annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and output shape, then use cases and exclusions. Each sentence earns its place, though the three-item use-case list is somewhat redundant with the first sentence's framing.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately states the return shape at a high level. Both params are fully covered by the schema and safety is covered by annotations. Minor gap: the precise introducer object structure and result ordering are unspecified, but for an aggregation tool this is largely sufficient.

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%: both limit and clients_only are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the billed_or_worked_on edge criterion. The description's 'how many of those became clients' and 'produce work' framing slightly enriches clients_only semantically, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it aggregates who introduced people in the user's graph, per introducer. Explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings ('NOT a route to one stranger, which is find_paths, and not a warmth ranking, which is who has gone quiet'), so an agent can tell it apart from find_paths and quiet_contacts without opening their schemas.

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 explicit use cases ('which relationships turn into work', 'who sends me business', 'what do my best clients have in common') and explicitly names the alternatives it is not, with the conditions that select them. 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.