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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about how the tool responds in each mode (index vs. matching definitions vs. files) but doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or result ordering. With annotations covering safety, this is good but not rich.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose, then map each of the three modes cleanly. No wasted words, though adding the 'since' example in the mode list would have tightened it further.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers all four parameters and all three usage modes. It doesn't explain what 'organization' does in relation to multi-org users, but that is minor and partly covered by the schema description.

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%; the schema already documents paths, query, since, and organization. The description echoes the modes implied by these parameters and adds a concrete example of 'since' (change id), but doesn't add much syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource: returns the organization's own definitions of metrics/terms/rules plus verified queries, naming concrete domains (KPIs, revenue, players, churn, retention). Clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'write_company_definition' since this one returns rather than writes.

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?

Explicitly says when to use each mode: no input for the index, query for matching definitions, paths for files. This is a complete when-to-use for each parameter combination, leaving nothing to infer.

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