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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context about the heuristic nature and paying-customer ordering. It still does not describe returned fields, data freshness, or how results are ordered beyond the paying-first hint.

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 definition is two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the target population and followed by an important caveat. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 simple read-only query, the core concept is explained, but without an output schema the description should say more about the returned user fields. The low parameter coverage also leaves gaps that the description does not fill.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with just min_events documented, and the description never mentions limit, inactive_days, or min_events by name. The phrase 'gone quiet' gestures at inactivity thresholds but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the population returned: people who were previously active but have gone quiet, with paying customers prioritized. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as find_inactive_accounts, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description provides a useful caveat that this is a simple heuristic, not a prediction, which implicitly tells the agent when not to use it. However, it never names alternatives like find_inactive_accounts or explains when to prefer this tool over them, leaving routing partly implicit.

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