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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioural context — what the tool detects (return visits excluding scheduled maintenance) and what it reports (labour + material cost per revisit) — plus the default window, but says nothing about ordering, limits, or result size.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the detection rule and followed by the reporting content and parameter note. Every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter, read-only analytical tool with an annotation-covered safety profile, the description covers what it finds, what it excludes, what it returns, and the parameter default. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or how the N-day window is measured relative to the original job.

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 0% for the single `days` parameter, so the description must carry the load and it does: it defines the parameter as the window length and supplies the default value of 14, which the schema does not encode.

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 analytical output ('return visits to the same customer within N days, same trade') and adds precise scope conditions, including the exclusion of scheduled maintenance. An agent can distinguish this from generic job/activity siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied through the detection criteria (repeat visits that aren't maintenance) rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool for adjacent questions like job history or technician performance.

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