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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds the key non-obvious behavior: this reads stored results rather than performing a scan, and it instructs the agent to report only returned values. It does not discuss freshness limits or empty-result handling, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded trigger clause followed by return contents, sibling routing, and a no-args note — each sentence carries information. The enumeration of returned fields is slightly long given an output schema exists, but it is not wasted since it tells the agent what to summarize.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers trigger, data source, sibling routing, and response handling. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments,' leaving no ambiguity that the call needs no input.

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 and resource ('reports stored monitoring results') and enumerates exactly what the user learns: monitored addresses, last-checked times, finding counts, 30-day new findings, open action-plan steps. It clearly distinguishes itself from leakdata.search and leakdata.action_plan.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('when the linked LeakData user asks how their monitoring is going...') and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each: leakdata.search for a fresh check, leakdata.action_plan for the steps themselves. Nothing is left to inference.

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