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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance beyond annotations: a stream flagged as stale is still served, only old. It also frames findings as 'currently' relevant, suggesting a live snapshot. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences convey the subject, concrete examples, and an important caveat without filler. The practical warning is front-loaded after the summary and earns its place.

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 listing tool with one optional limit parameter, the description, annotations, and schema together tell an agent what it does, why to call it, and how to interpret stale findings. No output schema is present, but none is needed for correct invocation.

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?

There is one optional parameter, limit, with default 50, and the schema contains no description for it. The description does not mention limit at all, so it adds no parameter-level meaning. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and default, which keeps this adequate rather than severely deficient.

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 explains what the tool exposes: complaints from the platform's own monitoring agents, itemized as dead collectors, stale data streams, and coverage drops. This identifies the resource and scope clearly, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or '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?

It gives a concrete trigger: 'Worth checking before relying on a number,' and clarifies that a stale finding does not mean the stream is unavailable—just outdated. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the guidance is actionable.

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