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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a useful behavioral trait: 'No LLM call,' indicating a cheap/fast operation. This goes beyond annotations but is not exhaustive; it doesn't mention edge cases, but given output schema and read-only annotations, it's sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, the second provides routing guidance. Zero filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and behavioral cost. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about scope ('organization-wide') but no parameter-specific details are needed. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties.

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 'Read' and a clear resource: organization-wide record totals, success rate, tokens, and cost summary. Explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like list_records and benchmark tools, making its distinct scope obvious.

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?

Directly tells the agent when to use this tool vs alternatives: use for organization-wide stats, use list_records(job_id=...) for a specific run, and benchmark tools for comparative scores. This is explicit and unambiguous.

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