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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact categories of state reported, the scoring semantics ('5 of 7 on track'), and the rule that weekly/monthly/dated goals show progress but are excluded from the day score.

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 function of the tool and its result shape are front-loaded, and the explanation of per-field rows is load-bearing rather than filler. It is on the dense side, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description still characterizes the content usefully. Combined with the annotations it is nearly self-sufficient; only the missing sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the date format and timezone convention. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no examples of interpretation, no note on what 'today' resolves to), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('summarize' + 'a day') and defines the scope precisely: each topic's state, the day score, skips and pauses. It also distinguishes the tool's granularity from a per-topic view by explaining that a field with its own daily goal becomes its own row, which an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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?

Gives concrete usage triggers ('how was my day', 'how am I doing today') and defines what is in versus out of the day score. It does not name the obvious alternative, summarize_topic, or say when to prefer that sibling over this one, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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