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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the result contains (counts and distributions), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, cost/latency of aggregation, or how missing conditions or empty collections are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the returned aggregates after a colon. There is no redundant or filler text; every clause adds 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the aggregated values an agent can expect in the response. It stops short of clarifying the meaning of the aggregates (e.g. what a 'condition' or 'comparison count' entails), but nothing essential to calling 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 is a single parameter (collection_h) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 40-char hex hash requirement. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for this parameter, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly scoped resource ('aggregated experiment results') and enumerates the aggregates returned: run count, condition breakdown, outcome tag distribution, comparison count. It does not, however, differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as GetRelationshipSummary, so an agent still has to reason about which summary tool applies.

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?

The word 'aggregated' implies this is the tool for high-level experiment statistics rather than raw run data, which is enough to suggest when it fits. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite guidance, and no named alternative, so usage is only inferred rather than stated.

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