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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to reiterate those. It adds useful context about the summary nature and date range, but does not disclose pagination, maximum results, or empty result behavior. This is acceptable given the annotations' completeness.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the 5 optional parameters, rich schema, and output schema (present but not shown), the description suffices for an initial scan tool. It could mention that it returns summaries (not full data) and the abbreviation 'CI/AC' might be clarified, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent understanding.

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?

All 5 parameters have exhaustive descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond restating the date lookback. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves compact CI/AC run summaries for a date range, positioning it as a lightweight overview tool distinct from sibling tools that provide full run details or specific analyses. The verb 'scan' and the phrase 'before drilling into full runs' effectively signal its role.

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 description implicitly advises using this tool for initial exploration before diving into more detailed tools, but it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name specific alternatives. The guidance is clear enough for most agents but lacks explicit boundary conditions.

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