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

The verb 'inspect' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, with no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint) and no further detail about side effects or data limits, the description carries the burden but does not go beyond the basic read-only implication.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence. It front-loads the action and clearly lists the scope, with no unnecessary words or filler.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for its purpose. It tells the agent what the tool does and for whom, without requiring additional explanation of return format or side effects.

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 schema fully covers everything. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which 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 clearly specifies the verb 'inspect' and the resource: buyer activation, reorder, and repeat-spend metrics, scoped to the calling organization. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like me_get_matches or me_quote.

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 specific metric names indicate exactly when to use this tool (when buyer lifecycle metrics are needed). It doesn't explicitly say 'use instead of X', but the purpose is narrow enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage from the context.

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