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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond those: the window default of the last 7 days, the scope of 'current customer', and the type of aggregated metrics returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second tells the agent why and when to use it. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers everything needed: what it returns, the default window, and its role as an entry point. There is no output schema, so listing the metric categories partially compensates, though a bit more detail on output shape would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both from and to are already well documented with defaults and ISO-8601 format. The description adds a slight clarification by summarizing the window default as 'last 7 days', but the schema already carries the semantic load, so this is a solid baseline-3 score.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get summary statistics for the current customer') and enumerates the returned contents: total identities, in-range events, and per-category averages. It also distinguishes itself as the 'entry point' for a customer review, separating it from more specialized dashboard siblings like dashboard_score_distribution and dashboard_rule_activity.

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 gives clear context: use it as the entry point for a customer review to get a quick health read. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5, but the intended calling context is unmistakable.

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