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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the useful fact that results span the funnel (signals through customers) plus credits per reply, but says nothing about how the time window affects the result or whether data is a snapshot vs live.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most important framing ('what Intent found and produced') is front-loaded. The metric list is long and slightly run-on, but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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 does the useful work of enumerating the returned metrics, which is a real contribution. However it omits any usage context, the time-window semantics, and differentiation from the closely related intent/overview siblings, leaving gaps for a reporting tool in a crowded namespace.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'days' is fully documented in the schema as '7 to 365, default 30'. The description never references the time window at all, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies for a well-documented single parameter.

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 is a noun-phrase inventory of returned metrics rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that this is a reporting/aggregate-results tool. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_intent_summary or get_overview, which likely return overlapping aggregate data. The enumeration hints at purpose but does not state it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to get_intent_summary or get_overview, and no stated preconditions. The agent gets no signal about which of the several 'intent' reporting siblings to select.

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