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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the three buckets of information and reaffirms 'Read-only digest', which is consistent. It doesn't introduce new security or mutation concerns, and the added detail about content goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the digest contents and followed by a concrete use case. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, filler, or restating of the title. It is highly compact and informative.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the digest includes and when to use it. It does not detail the output format (e.g., counts vs. items), but given the tool's summarize nature and the presence of sibling tools for granular details, this is acceptable. The safety profile is covered by annotations, so the description is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 input schema covers 100% of the two parameters (limit and window_hours) with descriptions, including defaults and bounds. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond restating the input's purpose. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; no additional value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('summarise') and resource ('seller's inbox') and enumerates concrete content categories: pending quote requests, at-risk orders, and reported issues. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote_requests or bulk_mark_shipped, which focus on single actions or data types.

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 states the intended context: 'Useful for a daily standup or cron-driven agent that decides which bulk action to run next.' This clarifies when to use it, aligning with the decision-making workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is clear and enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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