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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that this is an aggregate snapshot with a fixed set of derived metrics, but discloses no auth, rate-limit, or freshness/caching caveats. Adequate against a low bar but not rich.

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 with the core purpose, then the returned metrics, then an Args block. Every sentence carries information, though the multi-line metric list is slightly padded by formatting rather than prose.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, which is the key context an agent needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented user_intent parameter, which the description never addresses.

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 50%: brand_id has no schema description and is only restated as 'The brand (required)', and the user_intent analytics hint parameter is not mentioned at all in the description. It partially compensates for the brand_id gap but leaves the second parameter entirely to the schema.

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 ('Aggregate counts for the brand's action queue') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (status totals, quick-win count, completion rate, category/action_type/source breakdowns). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling get_actions because the description frames it as the summary view.

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?

Explicitly positions usage: 'a one-shot "how does the queue look right now" call before paging through it,' which contrasts with the paged detail tool. No explicit exclusions or named alternative, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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