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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that all metrics come back in one call with no filtering semantics beyond period, which tells the agent this is a broad read rather than a drill-down.

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 sentences: the first front-loads what is returned grouped by framework dimension, the second states usage. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it still summarizes the metric families so the agent knows what to expect. Annotations cover the safety profile; only the absence of named alternatives keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single period parameter is fully documented with its enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not mention period or its accepted values, adding nothing beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (team health overview) and enumerates what it returns: PRs, deployments, contributors, DORA ratings, collaboration and efficiency metrics. The phrase 'single-call snapshot' distinguishes it in spirit from the granular siblings (get-dora-metrics-tool, get-pull-request-metrics-tool), but 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?

'Use this for a single-call snapshot of team engineering health' gives a clear usage context, implying it is the aggregate entry point versus the per-metric tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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