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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful defaults and the taxonomy of leak types it surfaces, but says nothing about the output shape or how the analysis is computed beyond the category list.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence plus a short default-range clause with no filler. The enumeration of categories is dense but every item earns its place as a definition of what a 'leak' is.

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 analysis tool with no required params and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient — it defines the leak taxonomy (effectively the return content) and the default range. It lacks sibling-based routing guidance (find_gaps vs find_leaks), which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the format of from/to is documented. The description adds the default window ('Default the last 7 days'), which the schema does not convey, giving it slightly more value than the baseline 3.

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 states a recognizable purpose — identifying where time leaks — and enumerates the specific leak categories (goal work while the main step waited, overrides, unplanned work, switching, missed main steps, etc.), which is specific and distinctive. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tool find_gaps, which seems closely related given 'gaps' is listed as one leak category.

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?

The only guidance offered is 'Default the last 7 days,' which addresses the time window but says nothing about when to choose this tool over alternatives like find_gaps or summarize_day. There are no when-to-use or when-not conditions.

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