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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds the data content (specific fields returned), which is useful. But beyond annotations, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or response behavior.

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?

Single sentence that packs key information efficiently. Front-loaded with endpoint and purpose. Could be slightly improved by separating details into two sentences, but overall concise.

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?

Lists the main data fields returned (queue, failures, approvals, etc.), which is helpful. However, with no output schema and 4 parameters, it lacks parameter usage guidance and return structure details. Adequate but not complete.

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 50%, so some parameters have descriptions. But the description itself provides zero information about parameters (tz, query, brand_id, workspace_id). It does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it's a cross-workspace agency summary with specific data points (queue, failures, approvals, inbox split, credit burn). It distinguishes from per-workspace tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other summary tools like get_analytics_summary.

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?

Mentions required key type ('workspace-unscoped key') which is a usage constraint. However, no guidance on when to use over alternatives, no when-not-to-use scenarios, and no context on prerequisites.

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