team.summarize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: read-only and idempotent behavior, aggregated sources (AIToolCallLog + ValueEvent + AIValidationRunLog), auth requirements (Bearer token, Pro/Teams plan), and the private_session effect (bypass logging). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Pro/Teams, WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, BEHAVIOR, Auth, Residency). Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with essential purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It briefly lists them and covers all other aspects (behavior, auth, residency, parameter usage). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description explains the private_session parameter (skip logging for this call) beyond what the schema states, adding value. It also mentions the default 30 days, which is already in schema, but the extra context justifies a 4.

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 summarizes the caller's tool-usage patterns and value signals over a configurable window. It lists specific return fields (tool_call_counts, top principles, value_event_counts, readiness trend), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'me.learning_path' or 'principles.search'.

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 CALL and WHEN NOT TO CALL sections provide clear guidance. It states to call when user asks about 'how is the Blueprint helping' and warns against proactive use or comparing users, which effectively differentiates from alternatives.

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