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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds substantive context beyond them: the specific aggregates returned (daily avg score, run count, contributing-agent count) and the fact that deployment markers are unioned across agents.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the usage trigger, then the return contents. No filler and every sentence carries 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. It leaves minor gaps (e.g. how hours/missing days or empty fleets are handled) but is otherwise complete for a two-param read tool.

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%, so both parameters (days with default/max, customerId superadmin-only) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, matching the baseline for schema-documented params.

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 verb+resource (run-weighted score timeline aggregated across ALL agents in the fleet) and immediately differentiates from the per-agent sibling by contrasting fleet-wide vs 'one agent at a time'. An agent can distinguish it from get_score_timeline or get_agent without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('how is the whole fleet trending over time?') and an implied exclusion of the single-agent case. It does not name the exact alternative tool (e.g. get_score_timeline), so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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