yearly_wrapped

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about default exclusions (contacts never replied to) and the comprehensive nature of the summary, but does not detail rate limits, auth needs, or output format beyond listed metrics.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key features in a single sentence, followed by default behaviors. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from defaults.

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 tool's complexity (aggregating multiple metrics), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema, so it doesn't detail return values, but it lists summary components clearly. More behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, permissions) would enhance completeness.

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 100%, with parameters 'year' and 'include_all' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning defaults ('last year', excludes unreplied contacts) but does not explain parameter interactions or usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose: 'Returns a complete summary of a year' with specific details like 'total messages, top contacts, busiest day, monthly trends, reactions, group chats, media shared, late-night texting, new contacts, and effects used.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a comprehensive yearly summary rather than specific metrics or searches.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for a 'Year in Review' summary of iMessage data. It mentions defaults (last year, excludes unreplied contacts) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though it implies this is for aggregated yearly insights.

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