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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantially more: it explains that mutations happen on the site, that sentences must be relayed verbatim without rewording figures, that silenceApproves deadlines auto-approve, and that `unavailable` sections must be reported as unread rather than empty. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is dense and long, but front-loads the core purpose and then groups the return fields (waiting, work, whatsNew, suggestions, unavailable) with actionable instructions. Almost every clause carries information an agent needs, though the volume pushes against easy scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so thoroughly for a multi-section, complex aggregation tool. An agent has enough to call it and interpret every response section 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so lang, limit, rikma, and projectId are already fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description only lightly maps to parameters via the 'rikma X' scenario and the language instruction, adding marginal value over the schema.

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 aggregation purpose: 'what waits for the user and what is new for them' across rikmas, wishes, and deals. It is clearly distinguishable from point-lookup siblings like findUserProjectsTool, listMyWishesTool, or getMissionDetailsTool, which each cover only one slice of what this digest rolls up.

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?

Gives explicit invocation phrasings ('what's new today', 'what is waiting for me', 'what is happening in rikma X'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., single-item lookups), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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