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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior: the exact bucket taxonomy, the non-obvious rule that a recalled tap counts even when unverified, and the invariant that buckets always sum to total. It omits anything about retention, latency or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence; the second sentence is a long but information-dense definition of the buckets. Every clause carries meaning, though the bucket enumeration is heavy enough that it could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back; it does so by enumerating the outcome buckets and asserting they sum to total. It still leaves the response shape (field names, whether counts are nested by date, totals placement) unspecified, which for a reporting tool with no output schema is a modest gap.

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% and the single 'days' parameter already documents default 30 and max 365, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only refers to a 'recent period' in prose and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (this organisation's verification volume and outcome breakdown) with explicit scope (organisation, recent period). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_chip or list_findings, which act on individual units rather than aggregate reporting.

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?

Explicitly says what it is for: reporting on scan volume, authentication failure rates, and trend, which is concrete context for selection. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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