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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the exact metrics returned and the green/amber/red threshold semantics used to interpret them. It stops short of declaring read-only safety explicitly (only implied by 'Retrieve'), and omits auth/tenancy constraints, data freshness, and rate limits, which leaves gaps for a monitoring tool without annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by concrete output contents and thresholds. The parenthetical threshold listing is dense but each detail aids interpretation of the returned health rating, so it earns its space despite the length.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain results — and it does, covering every headline metric and the health-rating logic. What remains thin is operational context (read-only nature, tenant scoping behavior, aggregation limits beyond what the schema states).

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 the aggregation window (period 1-90, default 7) and the optional tenant_id scoping are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve search analytics summary') and immediately enumerates the returned payload (zero-result rate, latency percentiles, query-type breakdown, top zero-result queries). No sibling in the list overlaps with search analytics, so an agent can identify this tool unambiguously from the name plus description alone.

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?

It states a clear context of use ('for monitoring search quality'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name any alternative or exclusion, but no sibling tool competes for the same analytics purpose, so the practical guidance gap is small.

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