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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds valuable context beyond them: the series is suppressed until 2 weeks of data exist, empty weeks are omitted, and the tool requires a USER API key because workspace keys lack user identity. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the output meaning, then gives the invocation trigger, then adds the behavioral edge case and auth requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with complete annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it returns, when to use it, the empty-data behavior, and the API key requirement. Nothing material is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: retrieving the calling user's time-in-review history. It spells out the exact contents (an 8-week series of minutes, decision splits, week-over-week change), which makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling `campaignstack_get_reviews` and other read 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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: when the user asks how much time they are spending reviewing drafts or whether the queue is getting faster. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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