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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: read-permission filtering ('Only records you may read are included'), null-section handling with an availableSections listing, and the cost/latency fact that it 'Does not call the AI model' — meaningful context given AI-generating siblings.

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?

Four tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; scope, access behavior, and the no-AI note follow in a sensible order. Slightly lean toward informational listing over prioritization, but nothing 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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is scope and access semantics, both addressed: what sections are returned, how inaccessible sections appear, and that record visibility is permission-filtered. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so accountId, taskLimit and conversationLimit are fully documented in the schema. The description only obliquely references the limit parameters by mentioning 'open CRM tasks' and 'linked conversations' without adding range, default, or semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Read-only customer brief for one account') and enumerates the four contents it aggregates: details, tags, linked conversations with cached summaries, and open CRM tasks. That composite scope implicitly separates it from narrow siblings like get_contact or list_crm_tasks, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the one-shot overview tool for an account. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_contact, search_crm, or list_conversations, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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