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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by describing the payload composition and staleness metrics ('minutes ago the last dialog'), but says nothing about timeframe/timezone basis for 'this week' or whether results depend on project state.

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, with the metrics list first and the positioning statement last. The compressed comma-separated list is dense but every clause maps to actual returned data.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the metric groups. Only gap is the unstated window/timezone definition for 'this week against last week', which matters for interpreting the numbers.

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 is a single required parameter (project_id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing to dosai_list_projects for the value. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 enumerates the exact content returned: week-over-week dialogs, leads and % change, leads by status, dialogs by channel, and recency metrics. That is far more specific than the title 'Project overview', though it never names a verb (get/fetch) nor explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like dosai_get_analytics or dosai_get_funnel.

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 first stop for 'how is my bot doing'" gives a clear entry-point signal, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for deeper analysis (get_analytics, get_funnel). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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