Where the money and the calls went

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it succeeds. It explicitly states the tool 'Reads the attribution log' and reassures that it 'costs nothing and calls nobody', disclosing both the mechanism and the lack of side effects or budget impact.

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 single sentence is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose before layering in details and safety behavior. Every clause contributes distinct information, with no filler or repetition.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the breakdown contains, how totals are measured, what constants define the ceilings, and that invoking it has no side effects. The optional limit parameter is already documented in the schema.

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?

There is one parameter, limit, and the schema already fully describes it as 'only consider the most recent N logged calls' (100% schema coverage). The description adds no extra semantics for this parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already carries that weight.

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 opens with a specific reporting resource ('Per-recruit breakdown of the session') and enumerates the exact outputs: calls made, dollars spent, call purposes, and totals against both ceilings. It also names the data source ('Reads the attribution log'), making it clearly distinct from the sibling action tools like ask, discuss, and audition.

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 context is clear: this is the read-only reporting tool for session spend and call attribution, and the closing phrase 'costs nothing and calls nobody' signals when it is safe to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose itself implies the correct selection among the action-oriented sibling tools.

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