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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the figures are net amounts, access is restricted to admins, and the scope is a full year — all of which affect interpretation of the result.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the source dashboard first and then lists contents; nothing is padded. The nested parenthetical about confirmed quotations without sent order confirmations is dense but earns its place as a precise definition.

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 must convey return contents and does so by enumerating every metric group. Combined with the admin restriction and the net-amount convention, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the shape of the response (single object vs. per-month series) remains 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Default: this year'), so the schema already carries its meaning. The description's 'for a year' adds nothing on formatting, timezone or how partial-year data is handled, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description enumerates the exact metric groups the tool returns (open/paid/overdue invoices, pipeline, order confirmations, revenue per month, quotations by status), which is far more specific than the title's generic 'financial summary'. The enumeration itself separates it from single-resource siblings like list_invoices or revenue_forecast.

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?

'Admins only, as in docket' is an access constraint rather than usage guidance. It never says when to use this dashboard rollup versus list_invoices, list_quotations or revenue_forecast, so the agent must infer that this is the aggregate overview and the others are detail lists.

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