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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful epistemic caveat that counts are unconfirmed attacks, but says nothing about the default 24-hour window, the 2160-hour cap, or the sensitivity of the unverified credential data being surfaced.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and closed by the caveat. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is 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 no output schema, the enumeration of summary dimensions partially conveys the return shape, which helps. However, a three-parameter aggregation tool whose time window and test-inclusion flag are undocumented in both schema and description leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not: the listed items (observations, IPs, credentials, categories) describe output dimensions, not inputs. The `feed` enum is self-describing, but `hours` is never mentioned as the time window and `include_operator_tests` is completely opaque — an agent cannot infer what operator tests are or why to include them.

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 opens with a specific verb ("Summarize") and enumerates the resources summarized: published observations, source IPs, submitted credentials, categories and MCP tool activity. That is enough to tell it apart from evidence-oriented siblings like get_observation_evidence or get_session_timeline, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this aggregate view versus search_observations or get_session_timeline, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The second sentence ("Counts are not confirmed attacks") is an interpretive caveat about the data, not usage guidance.

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