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 usefully states that literals are already masked and that the result is ordered by time spent, which adds real context. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, whether any filtering is applied, or what the caller field contains when unknown.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The product definition, ordering, included fields, masking behavior, and intended question are all front-loaded efficiently.

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 listing tool with three plain parameters and no output schema, the description explains the key result contents: fingerprints, time ordering, call counts, caller, and masking. It could be slightly richer about the exact return shape, but nothing critical needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, site_id, and window_minutes. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying that the result focuses on slow queries, so the baseline score 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 names a specific resource (SQL fingerprints), a clear ordering principle (by time spent), and includes what is returned (call counts, caller when known). The quoted question "which query is slow" makes the tool's intent unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like phpray_slow_pages.

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 phrase "Answers 'which query is slow'" gives a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the SQL-specific scope provides enough direction relative to the sibling tools.

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