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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context (cross-channel: dashboard, MCP, email), but says nothing about ordering, staleness, or whether results are per-agent or organisation-wide, so it does not go far beyond the structured data.

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 no filler; the resource definition is front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately.

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 a one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why to call it. Only ordering/recency semantics and result granularity are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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% — the single 'limit' parameter is already documented with its default (20) and max (60) in the schema. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or default information, so the 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 the resource precisely — the recent conversation between the organisation and its Aeroz agent — and specifies the channels it spans (dashboard, MCP, email). It does not explicitly name the sibling tool it complements, but 'before asking again' clearly signals it is the retrieval counterpart to ask_agent.

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 gives explicit usage context: consult this to see what has already been asked and answered before asking again. That is a clear when-to-use statement, though it stops short of naming ask_agent as the alternative or stating any exclusion conditions.

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