Owner digest (markdown): followers, output, what worked, people, queue, goals, advice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that the report is free, local, and returns markdown, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key qualities (free, local) and then the purpose and composition. Every sentence earns its place without 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it says what the report is, what it includes (built from insights, people, handoff, goals), and the output format (markdown). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys the return value.

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?

The only parameter 'days' is fully described in the schema with a default and range, so the description need not repeat it. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 produces a markdown report for the account owner, and the title lists specific contents (followers, output, what worked, people, queue, goals, advice). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by aggregating insights, people, handoff, and goals into a single digest.

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 gives a clear use case: generate a weekly summary or shareable report, mentioning it can be pasted into DM/email/Notion. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for raw data, but the aggregate nature implies when this tool is appropriate versus querying individual data sources.

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