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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the directional behavior of the weeks parameter (reading earlier entries), which is useful but modest additional context; no pagination or return-shape info, though an output schema exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the screen scope, then the sibling routing, then the parameter behavior. No filler, though slightly terse.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description needn't explain returns or safety. It covers the key non-obvious quirks (weekly grouping, parse_why routing, weeks directionality), leaving only the singular/plural sibling distinction unaddressed.

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 the burden. It clarifies the weeks parameter's directionality ('Increase weeks to read earlier entries'), compensating for the undocumented integer, but says nothing about brandSlug, which pairs with a completely undocumented schema.

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 the resource and scope clearly ('The Insights screen: every insight by week'), implying a list of insights. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling parse_dashboard_insight, so it falls short of a 5.

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 routing guidance: call parse_why first for AI reasoning about the brand. No exclusion or guidance versus parse_dashboard_insight, but the context for use is clear enough.

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