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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new traits beyond them: the 7-day window for while_you_were_gone, that it is capped at account age, that rank reflects position among all moves and gaps mean unshippable ranks, and that the tool is 'free.' The 'Relay the message field' instruction is a useful behavioral directive.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each parenthetical clause introduces a distinct return component rather than restating. It is dense as a single long sentence, but every clause (receipts, ready, while_you_were_gone, deep scan status) carries information the agent needs, so little is wasted.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly: it names the standup sections, explains the rank semantics of 'ready,' and flags the message field to relay. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and use it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. There is no input to misdescribe, and the schema takes no input names to explain.

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, recognizable artifact (the daily growth marketing standup) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: receipts, ready moves, while_you_were_gone, and deep-scan status. This clearly distinguishes it from the many granular siblings like get_activity, get_outcomes, and get_scoreboard, which it consolidates 'in one call.'

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 framing 'in one call' strongly implies this is the preferred aggregate over calling the individual sibling tools separately, giving clear context for use. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., when to prefer get_scoreboard directly), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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