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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds sort order (most recent first) and team scoping, which are useful, but does not add pagination/limit behavior or return shape details beyond the field list. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a crisp enumeration of returned fields and concrete usage triggers. Zero wasted words.

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?

A list tool with one optional param, full schema coverage, and an output schema already present. The description covers scope, sort order, returned fields, and usage triggers – everything needed to call it correctly. Output schema handles return details.

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 coverage is 100% – the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1–50, default 10, newest first). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (Fun Friday sessions) + scope (this team, recently) + sort order. Output fields are enumerated (game, when, participants, winner), distinguishing it from siblings like funfriday_get_session (single) and funfriday_get_leaderboard (aggregate).

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?

Explicit when-to-use cases given as sample questions: 'when did we last do a Fun Friday?' or summarising recent weeks. This tells the agent not just what but when, and implicitly contrasts with single-session and leaderboard siblings.

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