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

Annotations already cover read-only/safe, but the description adds that results are computed on demand from the execution log and bounded to the last 14 days. It doesn't mention cost, latency, or behavior for flows with no executions, which keeps it from a 5.

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 metric list, then the sibling differentiation, then the input sourcing and the read-only note. Dense but every sentence carries information; the metric enumeration is long though it is the payload the agent needs.

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 read-only analytics tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers scope, time window, id sourcing, and the sibling boundary. The one gap is that return values aren't sketched at all, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so both parameters, the 1-5 item bound, and the unknownFlowIds behavior are already documented. The description adds only where to source the ids, which is a mild but real addition over the schema.

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 (measure) and object (named flows) plus the exact metrics produced: entries, per-block stop rate, human handoffs, errors. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_funnel_analytics and explains the scope difference (any flow vs. funnel-visible flows), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_funnel_analytics) and the condition under which this tool is required (flows reached from a menu button, sequence, or operator handoff). It also tells the agent where to get the ids (get_workspace_summary or the flow index) and notes the 14-day window, which is a real usage constraint.

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