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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the content (subjective + confounders + manual objective values) and that aggregates are anchored at the range end. It does not mention response format or size limits, but it adds value beyond the annotations.

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 description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, and the second gives the primary use cases. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two date parameters, the description sufficiently explains the output (raw entries plus aggregates) and gives usage context. It could clarify whether both endpoints are inclusive, but given the simple parameter set and no output schema, it is adequately 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?

The schema has zero descriptions for the two parameters. The description only refers to 'a date range' without explaining inclusivity, timezone, or defaults. It does not compensate for the lack of schema coverage, leaving parameters semantically under-specified.

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 tool returns raw readiness entries and per-metric aggregates for a date range. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming the use cases 'trend review', 'before/after a training block', and mentions log_readiness for backfilling, which differentiates it from get_readiness_today and get_readiness_baseline.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios: trend review, before/after a training block, and checking history before backfilling. It names log_readiness as the tool to use for backfilling, providing guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like get_readiness_today, though the context implies historical vs. current.

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