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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds an interpretive hint about bimodal/skewed distributions but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or response format, which is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence offers an actionable diagnostic tip. No filler or repetition; 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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers what it returns (a histogram across four categories) and how to interpret it. Annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema documents the parameters, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the two optional date parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'the given window' without adding semantics like timezone handling or precision, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('histogram of identity scores across all four categories'), and enumerates the categories, making it unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like dashboard_stats (general stats) or analyze_identity (individual identity analysis), so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 implies when to use it: to inspect the score distribution for a window, and specifically to identify analyzers needing tuning via the bimodal/skewed cue. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward read-only tool.

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