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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds that results are aggregated fleet-wide and hinted at remediation ('what has Converra fixed?'), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or scope limits beyond the annotation surface.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its payload fields, followed by a positioning sentence and illustrative questions. The question framing is somewhat promotional but does double as usage guidance, so waste is limited.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the return fields (scores, run counts, failure rates, deployment stats). For a zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is largely sufficient, though aggregation granularity and time window are unstated.

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%: sortBy is documented with enum meanings and default, and customerId's superadmin restriction is stated in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (fleet-level dashboard of all agents) and enumerates the content it exposes: performance scores, run counts, failure rates, deployment stats. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_fleet_intelligence or get_fleet_timeline, which also sound fleet-wide.

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?

Calls itself 'the entry point for understanding agent health across the fleet' and frames use cases as questions, giving an agent a clear sense of when to reach for it. It names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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