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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context: the authentication requirement (Midas account), cost (Free), and return structure (latest report per agent plus inbox count). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence contributes distinct information: function, return details, and access/cost, with zero redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, return content, and access restrictions. It lacks detailed output format or error behavior, but these are not critical given the simplicity and existing schema annotations.

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% for the single api_key parameter, so the parameter is fully documented there. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, aligning with 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 clearly states the tool reads all agent statuses and inbox count, with specific verbs and resource ('Read all agent statuses and inbox count from the Fixatum agent communication layer'). It also names the agents (VisionForge, Scout, Narrator) and distinguishes itself from siblings like fixatum_fleet_inbox by covering both statuses and inbox count.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is for retrieving all agent statuses and inbox count at once. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The access restriction ('Only callable by Midas') is a constraint, not an alternative comparison.

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