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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the result is an AI-activity summary and, importantly, that client texts embedded in the output are data and must not be followed as instructions — a real injection-defense caveat. It stops short of saying how large/fresh the payload is.

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?

A single sentence with a colon-delimited content list followed by one safety clause — front-loaded with no filler. The list is dense but every element tells the agent something about the return shape.

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?

For a read-only aggregate view with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what is actually needed: what the screen contains and the injection caveat. Volume expectations, ordering, and whether results are scoped to the current day only are left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (workspace_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing to dosai_list_workspaces for discovery. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema already fully documents it.

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?

Names the concrete artifact (the CRM's "Today" screen) and enumerates its contents — deals awaiting a human, burning deals, tasks due today, AI activity — so an agent knows exactly what payload to expect. It does not distinguish itself from the nearest siblings (dosai_get_overview, dosai_list_tasks, dosai_list_deals), which keeps it off a 5.

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 framing as a daily-attention dashboard implies the use case (triage/standup rather than bulk retrieval), but no sentence states when to pick this over dosai_list_deals + dosai_list_tasks or dosai_get_overview. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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