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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is aggregate totals over the whole filtered set rather than individual recordings, which is the key behavioral distinction for an 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and returned metrics, followed by examples, then a one-line note on filters. It is efficiently sized; the bilingual example is slightly extraneous but doubles as a phrasing hint.

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 and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or parameters. It states purpose, aggregate fields, and filter scoping—enough for correct invocation, though a brief pointer to when to prefer it over list_recordings would complete it.

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% with all 13 parameters individually documented, including enums and patterns, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only summarizes the filter scopes (project, team, period) without adding format or interaction details beyond the schema, hitting the baseline 3.

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?

It names a specific resource and verb ('Totals over the user's Kalima recordings') and enumerates exactly which aggregates are returned (count, duration, transcribed words, first/last time). It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_recordings or search_recordings, so an agent must infer that this aggregates rather than lists.

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 example questions ("how many hours did I record last month", "wie viele Besprechungen hatte ich") give concrete trigger contexts, and 'The filters scope it to a project, team or period' clarifies the narrowing behavior. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. list_recordings for raw rows) is provided.

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