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

The description claims the tool is a read operation ('single read') and a pure aggregation, while the annotations include `readOnlyHint: false`. This is a direct contradiction: the agent cannot rely on the description's implicit read-only promise and the annotation's mutability signal. Rule scores this 1 because the description contradicts the structured annotations.

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 long, with extensive parentheticals about cash semantics and approval counting. All the details are load-bearing and the main purpose is front-loaded ('Your morning brief in one call'). The sentence structure is somewhat heavy, but it is far from tautological: it earns its length.

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 burden of understanding the response. It does well for the cash fields and approvals (defining `cash.total`, `cash.ownerFunding`, `cash.cards`, and `approvals.total` with careful liability and count semantics). However, some high-level outputs (tax position, low stock, overdue bucket details) are only named, not explained, making it slightly incomplete as an output reference.

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 input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics description needed to fill in; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameters and focuses instead on what the tool returns.

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 specific, comprehensible framing: 'Your morning brief in one call' and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: sales/expenses, cash position, debtors, approvals, tax and low stock. It also names the sibling tools's individual reads it aggregates, which distinguishes it from business_snapshot, cash_position, ar_aging, tax_position, and low_stock.

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 description clearly establishes the intended use case: a one-call morning brief, contrasted with individual tools via 'Assembles the same figures as the individual tools' and 'brief me is a single read.' It does not explicitly provide a 'when not to use' list or direct the agent to a more specific sibling for deeper drill-down, keeping this at a 4 rather than 5.

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