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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about data sensitivity (private business data) and access control (authorised caller), which is useful but not a major addition. There is no contradiction with annotations; the description aligns with a read operation. It does not disclose output format or error behavior, but that is not required given the simple scope.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose (summarise visitors/details/questions) and adds a concise security note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema details or annotation hints. Structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what is returned (visitors talked, details left, common questions) which helps an agent infer the response shape. It also mentions authorization. However, it does not mention the 'days' parameter or any filtering semantics, and it does not clarify whether the summary is aggregate or per-day. These are minor gaps for a simple read tool; the description is largely complete for typical use.

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?

The description does not add any meaning about the parameters themselves; it only describes the output summary. Schema description coverage is 67% (salesperson_id and api_key are documented, but days is not). The description fails to clarify what 'days' controls (e.g., time range), leaving a gap for that parameter. Since the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding and coverage is moderate, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and identifies the resource (salesperson results), stating exactly what data is returned (visitors talked, details left, common questions). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like check_salesperson_status or configure_salesperson, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 description provides guidance on authorization ('only returned to an authorised caller') and warns against asking website owners for an API key, directing them to HeySale instead. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. results), nor does it mention prerequisites like having a salesperson_id from create_website_salesperson (that is in the schema). Guidance is present but not comprehensive for tool selection.

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