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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the payload contents (counts and hit/miss totals), implying a read-only aggregate query. It says nothing about scoping to 'this account', freshness, caching, or whether data spans all servers by default.

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?

A single compact phrase with no filler, front-loading the scope ('this account's') and the resource. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, describing the returned metrics is the right move and largely covers the gap. Missing are the response structure (per-server keying, field names) and any access or freshness caveats an agent would need to trust the numbers.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource – per-server dialect profile counts plus hit/miss totals – which is concrete enough for an agent to know what data comes back. It lacks an action verb and never names how it differs from siblings like verdict_stats, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus verdict_stats or the error_* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.

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