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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by listing the specific data returned, but it does not describe output shape, pagination, or edge cases like missing data for an unknown agent.

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 focused sentences: the first lists the concrete data returned, and the second gives actionable use cases. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description usefully enumerates the main return fields, so an agent can predict the result. It omits minor details such as defaults or limits, but for a straightforward read-only stats tool this 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds context about why the tool is used but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for agent_name, companyId, or days.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving detailed performance statistics for a specific agent and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping sibling tools such as get_agent_outcome_panel or get_activity_health, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear intended use cases: audit agent health, trace problems, and identify improvement opportunities. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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