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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are bucketed hourly, in UTC, and the current partial hour is included — a caveat that affects interpretation of the last data point.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the granularity and timezone constraints that matter most come first.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It covers what is aggregated, the granularity, timezone, and partial-hour behavior; only the role of the hours window is left implicit.

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?

The single 'hours' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The enum (1, 24, 168) and default of 24 make the window largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about what the window governs.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('aggregate origin requests and tool calls') with defined granularity ('UTC hourly buckets'). Siblings (get_service_info, get_support_info) are clearly unrelated metadata tools, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but it's also not stated.

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 says what is read but never when to use it or how to pick among the 1/24/168 hour windows the schema exposes. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer the use case entirely.

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