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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only, free' (though read-only is redundant with annotation) and discloses operational details like 'capped at the account's age' and that the deep scan status is included. It does not contradict annotations, so no annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence, front-loaded with the key phrase 'daily growth marketing standup in one call'. Every clause adds unique information (shipped items, receipts, ready list with rank explanation, engine actions with cap, deep scan status). There is no fluff, and it ends with 'Read-only, free' for quick safety recognition.

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 the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains its purpose, content, usage timing, and constraints (cap, free, read-only). It covers all key aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret its output. It is complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivial. The description explains what the tool returns (the standup data sections) and instructs to 'relay the message field', adding meaning beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is given, but the explicit instruction about relaying a field elevates it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'The daily growth marketing standup in one call' and enumerates the specific data sections (receipts, ready, while_you_were_gone, deep scan status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Call this at the START of a session, before list_feed', which differentiates it from list_feed and other get_* tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this at the START of a session, before list_feed.' This instructs the agent on ordering relative to a sibling tool, and the tool is clearly a session-initiation utility. It also implicitly says when not to use (not for listing feed items), making usage guidelines strong.

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