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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level detail about what is surfaced (stale in-progress, ghost cards, stuck cards), but says nothing about ordering, aggregation scope, or freshness of the counters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a three-part colon list; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded. Slightly dense parentheticals are the only cost.

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 parameters and a declared output schema, the description needn't document return values, and it gives enough scope to call the tool correctly. The one real gap is sibling routing against get_hygiene, which belongs to usage guidance.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. The colon-separated breakdown instead clarifies output categories, which is a bonus.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('focus overview') and an explicit enumeration of what the overview contains (due cards, attention-worthy cards, hygiene counters). It distinguishes the tool from generic listers, but it never clarifies how it differs from the very similar sibling get_hygiene, which it partially overlaps.

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 never states when to use this rather than get_hygiene, get_board, or search_cards, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The triage-oriented content implies a use case, but the agent must infer it.

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