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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add that output is sized to a token budget and is prompt-ready, which is useful, but it omits default behaviors driven by the optional params (summary default true, session/peer defaults).

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 dense, front-loaded sentences enumerate the payload first, and the takeaway ('Drop the result into your prompt') follows immediately. The trailing 'Read-only.' fragment is slightly redundant against the annotations but costs almost nothing.

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 need no prose, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately frames what the call assembles for a zero-required-param aggregation tool, though it could have flagged the default-behavior interactions of summary and peer_target.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including defaults and bounds. The description echoes token budget, summary, and optional peer presence but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a concrete verb (Get) and enumerates the exact resource payload: a summary of older turns, recent messages, and the peer representation plus peer card. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_peer_card and search, which return only fragments of the same data.

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?

It implies usage ('to continue a conversation', 'Drop the result into your prompt') and hints that peer data only appears 'with a peer', but never states when to prefer this over get_peer_card, search, or chat, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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