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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively clarifies that the tool is not scheduled and that all numbers come from calls already made, preventing the agent from assuming it triggers work. It does not mention permissions or explicit read-only status, but for a report tool these are lesser gaps.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear colon list of report contents. The 'Free and pro' note adds little to tool invocation, but it is minor and does not make the description bloated.

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 one-parameter report tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the report contains and that it is not timer-based. The default window is left to the schema, and no output schema exists, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter 'days' with its range, default, and meaning, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description's 'over a window' only loosely refers to the parameter and adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a short report of Ogen's activity over a window, listing the four report categories. It is specific about what the tool returns, but it does not use a verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like audit_log or recall_live_fact.

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: this is a retrospective report, and it explicitly states 'nothing here runs on a timer — every number comes from calls already made.' This tells an agent when to use it, but it does not name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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