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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; description confirms a read-only query returning data. No side effects mentioned; consistent.

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?

Core purpose and parameters are stated efficiently. Some rhetorical framing (the quoted question) adds color but does not distract.

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?

Covers what, when, and how. Lists return fields. Lacks explicit output schema in the description but that is separate; for an agent understanding the tool, it is sufficient.

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?

Each parameter (day, days, since) is explained with defaults and precedence (ignored if day set). The schema lacks descriptions, so the description fully compensates.

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?

Clear verb and resource: returns cycle counts per gate. Directly tied to a specific question ('why no signal') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the rejection funnel.

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?

Explains when to use: to answer the 'prove it' question about rejections. Parameter descriptions clarify how to scope the query. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings but the context makes it clear.

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