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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope context beyond the annotations: it is members-only and excludes financial data, and it clarifies the trailing-window semantics of the counts.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the metric list, then usage, then a docs link. The enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema; the trailing docs URL is the only low-value element.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing every metric plus a last-activity timestamp. Source of projectId and the days window are covered by the schema, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (days default 30, projectId sourced from findUserProjectsTool). The description only alludes to 'the last N days,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource and then enumerates the exact metrics returned (members, open missions, missions in progress, resources, decisions, timers, finished missions, hours logged), which distinguishes it from getMissionStatsTool and getProjectDetailsTool without opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to judge whether a rikma is active before planning,' and an exclusion ('no per-member financial data'). It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. getProjectDetailsTool) for the case where narrative detail is wanted, so it falls short of a 5.

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