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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'Returns up to 90 days of data,' which is a useful limit, but it omits other behavioral aspects like read-only nature, permission requirements, or return structure. This is a moderate disclosure for a read-only analytics tool.

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 composed of three concise sentences, each adding value: the core function, the use case, and the data limit. There is no unnecessary fluff, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the purpose, use case, and a key limit (90 days), but it lacks details about the output format or structure, especially since there is no output schema. For a simple data retrieval tool, the description is adequate but leaves room for more context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (days and targetId) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool gets daily time-series data for runs, findings, and average duration, which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like target_stats or team_stats, so it misses the differentiation criterion for 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?

The description says it is 'useful for identifying trends over time,' which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the use case is explicit enough to guide an agent.

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