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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description needn't argue safety. It adds genuinely useful context beyond that: revenue figures are in minor units and the revenue series spans 12 months, both of which affect interpretation. It stops short of mentioning freshness/caching behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that is essentially pure payload — every token names a metric or a unit. Slightly list-like and fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.

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 must carry the return contract, and it does: it names each metric (active clients, revenue current vs prior month, growth %, 12-month series, weekly sessions, retention %) and flags minor units. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 verb+resource ('dashboard numbers') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. The 'Solo-coach' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the organization-level sibling get_organization_dashboard, though it never names that alternative.

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?

Scope is implied by 'Solo-coach', which tells the agent this is the individual-coach view rather than the org view. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to get_organization_dashboard, billing_summary, or get_prospect_stats for related numbers.

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