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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is fast because it hits a pre-aggregated endpoint rather than raw events, returns several categories of stats in one call, and enforces a max 30-day date range. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but the core operational behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 front-loaded with the key definition and performance characteristic, then uses compact bullets for usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the examples help match user intents, the return-content summary sets expectations, and the escalation rule routes to get_report. It is thorough without being 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 6-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: scope, date range constraint, return categories, and relationship to get_report. It could be more complete by noting whether the operation is strictly read-only or what happens if the date range exceeds 30 days, but those are minor gaps given the schema and output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the date-range scope ('Date range required, max 30 days') and emphasizing that this is for a single container over a range. This helps the agent understand parameter intent without re-reading the schema.

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 opens with a specific definition: 'Aggregated performance snapshot for one container over a date range.' It clearly names the resource, the verb, and the scope. It also distinguishes itself from get_report by saying it is the default first call and that get_report is for dimension breakdowns/time series.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' examples covering common user phrasings, then states it is the DEFAULT first call for single-period performance questions. It also gives a concrete exclusion: 'Only escalate to get_report when the user wants a breakdown by a specific dimension... or a time series.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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