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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing the API-key scoping constraint that gates the call and by specifying the aggregate contents returned. It omits rate limits, freshness/latency of the 24-hour window, and behavior when workspace_id is supplied anyway.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the precondition, with the enumerated payload list doing real work. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true but costs only a few tokens.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing the summary's sections. Combined with the auth scoping note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only parameter-level behavior (tz, query overrides, whether workspace_id is honored) and any paging/limits are missing.

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 description coverage is only 50% (tz and brand_id are entirely bare, and `query` is a free-form additionalProperties bag), so the description is expected to compensate — and it says nothing about any of the four parameters. 'Cross-workspace' mildly implies workspace_id is irrelevant here, which is left unresolved rather than explained, so the agent gets no guidance on tz or the query overrides.

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 ('Read') and resource ('cross-workspace agency summary') and then enumerates the exact contents: today's queue, next scheduled post, 24h failures, pending approvals, inbox counts by comments/DMs, and AI credit burn per workspace. The 'cross-workspace agency' framing and the 'same data as the dashboard Command Center' anchor cleanly separate it from the many per-workspace and single-resource getters in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a hard precondition: it 'Works only with a key that is not scoped to one workspace,' which tells the agent when the call will fail and implicitly routes workspace-scoped needs to siblings like aidelly_get_workspace or aidelly_get_analytics_summary. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a full 5.

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