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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations it repeats, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: returned records include the coach's answer and whether it was corrected, and PII (names, numbers, emails, links, handles) is redacted. It also states the auth/ownership prerequisite. It doesn't mention pagination or how "recent" is bounded, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering scenario, followed by return contents and prerequisites. "It reads only" is largely redundant with readOnlyHint but is cheap and unambiguous.

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 three params (one required), no nested objects, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: redaction behavior, return contents, and the account-ownership prerequisite. The one real omission is semantics for the days/limit parameters.

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 33%: only brain_id is documented (with an example), while days and limit carry no schema description. The description says "recent questions" but never explains what the days window defaults to or what limit controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a concrete verb+resource combination: viewing the recent questions members asked their AI coach, together with the coach's answer and correction status. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like rate_my_coach or correct_my_coach, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

"Use this when a Phorme coach wants to see what their members really ask their AI coach, to review or rate it" gives a clear triggering context, and it adds a prerequisite: a connected Phorme account that owns the brain. It stops short of explicitly excluding alternatives (e.g. rate_my_coach may be the better call once a question is chosen for rating).

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