suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' mostly restates structured data and earns little credit. What it does add is the data source ('from real usage'), telling the agent suggestions are evidence-based rather than heuristic, but it never says where usage data comes from or how suggestions are delivered.

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?

A single compact sentence with the substantive detail (data source and suggestion categories) front-loaded and no filler. The terseness is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch the shape of the return (a ranked list? grouped by category?) and define the 'days' window. It gives only a rough category sketch, leaving the agent uncertain about both input semantics and output format.

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 only 50%: 'device' is described in the schema, but 'days' has no description, no default, no unit or range. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap — the agent cannot tell whether 'days' limits the usage window or changes anything else.

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 names the resource (suggestions derived from real usage) and enumerates three categories, but the phrasing 'most-used apps not in reach' is opaque and the categories are only loosely defined. It does distinguish itself from mutating siblings via 'Changes nothing', but the verb 'suggest' largely restates the tool name rather than pinning down a specific operation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many siblings (playbook, plan_debloat, doctor, report). The closest thing to routing guidance is 'Changes nothing', which implies this is the read-only analysis step before apply_plan, but the agent must infer that.

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