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

Annotations already cover the read-only/safe profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: that the response aggregates open/closed task counts per deliverable, that `summary` is AI-authored, and that `delivered_at` reflects actual delivery. No note on pagination or permissions, but the added data-provenance detail is valuable.

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 function, then a definition, a use case, and field clarifications. Every sentence carries information; slightly verbose but no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially: it explains the task counts, `summary`, and `delivered_at`. It omits the full record shape and pagination behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 100% and the schema descriptions are already rich (workspace_id even explains omitting it means all workspaces). The description adds nothing about limit, status, or workspace_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (entregables del workspace) and the distinctive scope (each one with counts of open/closed tasks), and defines what an entregable is. It does not explicitly name how it differs from create_deliverable/update_deliverable, but the aggregation scope is specific enough to distinguish it.

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 clear use case: answering "¿cómo viene X?" without reading task by task. That tells the agent when this beats get_tasks. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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