summary

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful content about what the summary returns and that `read` is for deeper detail, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or cost.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and contents of the summary, and the `read(id)` pointer is useful. The `Args` block duplicates the schema somewhat and the long content list could be tighter, but there is little wasted information.

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 simple one-parameter interface, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what the summary contains and when to use `read` instead. The main gap is that it does not specify the accepted format or identity of the `topic` parameter.

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 required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says `topic: the topic to summarize`, which mostly restates the parameter name and does not clarify whether the value is a topic ID, name, or other identifier.

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 that the tool summarizes a topic and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: participants, message count, closed status, unanswered/answered requests, outcomes, votes, and latest messages. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling `read` by saying to use `read(id)` for details.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to get an overview without reading everything, and use `read(id)` for details. It does not explicitly cover when to choose other siblings like `search` or `inbox`, but the main alternative is named.

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