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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: this returns a browsable multi-tab UI surface rather than a text payload, which is the key behavioral fact for an agent. It stops short of saying whether the call navigates the client or returns a reference.

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, no filler: the first states what appears, the second states when to invoke it. The behavioral differentiator (browse instead of written answer) is placed last, which is the right emphasis point before the agent decides.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters, full schema coverage, a complete annotation set, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. Given that support, the only remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against open_agent_inbox, which is not addressed.

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% — both view (with an enum and default noted) and agentId are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the tab concept without adding syntax or interaction details for those parameters, so the schema does the substantive work.

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 verb ("Show") and names the resource ("the Agent One app") plus the exact contents of its tabs: agents, waiting conversations, recent conversations, recent leads. That detail distinguishes it from data-returning siblings like list_agents or get_conversation, but it never names those siblings or open_agent_inbox, so the differentiation has to be inferred.

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 it when the user wants to see or browse their Agent One activity rather than get a written answer" gives a clear selection condition: browsing intent versus a written answer. However, it does not explicitly address when open_agent_inbox (the most similar sibling) should be chosen instead, nor does it state exclusions.

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