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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the access model: approver-only, gated behind the timeTracking (PRO+) feature, and tied to a specific UI surface. It does not describe output shape or any computation caveats around cost-at-risk.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core scope front-loaded ahead of permissions and usage context. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, single-parameter rollup with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, caller restrictions, and plan gating. Only the shape of the returned rollup (per-user rows, what cost-at-risk measures) is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents weekStart fully. The description repeats the YYYY-MM-DD format but omits the schema's 'Monday of the target week' constraint, adding essentially nothing beyond the structured field.

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 resource and scope: per-user timesheet compliance plus cost-at-risk, for a single week. An agent can tell it is a rollup rather than an entry-level tool, but it never names or contrasts with near siblings such as week_status, list_compliance_exceptions, or revenue_at_risk.

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 clear preconditions (approver-only, timeTracking plan gate PRO+) and a usage framing (the 'who is behind on hours?' rollup for the Approvals inbox). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointing to an alternative tool for adjacent questions.

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