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; 'Read-only' largely repeats that. 'Free' adds a small piece of cost context. The description usefully discloses the shape of the returned payload, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or auth requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the payload before the qualifiers. Efficient, though the four-item list is slightly dense and 'weekly movement scoreboard' could have been trimmed or tied to the sibling it overlaps.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back, which it does by enumerating the outcome categories. It stops short of noting freshness or that some sections are empty until moves ship and connections are authorized.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 resource and enumerates the returned data: tracked-link clicks per move, shipped counters, weekly movement scoreboard, and connection status for GA4/Search Console. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though the mention of a 'scoreboard' overlaps with the sibling get_scoreboard and no explicit disambiguation is given.

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?

The description says only 'Read-only, free' — it never states when to call this versus get_scoreboard, get_snapshot, or get_activity. No prerequisites, no trigger conditions, no exclusions.

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