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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them by defining the ingestion status values (healthy, delayed with its five-minute threshold, degraded with qualityIssueCount, inactive with latestAcceptedAt semantics, unavailable). This is exactly the diagnostic context an agent needs to interpret results, not a restatement of the safety profile.

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 return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the use case and status definitions. The second sentence is dense and runs long with nested parentheticals, but every clause carries information rather than filler.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return format, and it still supplies the interpretive status vocabulary an agent needs. For a read-only single-snapshot tool with four params this is essentially complete, missing only a note on range selection.

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 75%, so the schema already documents range (with enum/default), reason, user_intent, and namespace_id. The description touches range semantics indirectly ("in the range", "latest batch in any range") but adds no guidance on choosing 24h/7d/30d, and says nothing about the required reason/user_intent/namespace_id fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a precise verb and resource — return MCP server activity plus ingestion health from one snapshot — and enumerates exactly which fields come back (server, tool and call counts, success, latency, client mix, telemetry arrival). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_namespace_overview, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use it to verify a new integration" gives a concrete triggering scenario, and the status taxonomy implies when a result is actionable. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit sibling routing, so it falls short of a 5.

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