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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the specific statistics returned and notes 'when available' for token-savings, which provides some insight into data completeness. However, it does not disclose any edge cases, authentication requirements, or potential variability beyond the 'when available' caveat.

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 compact and efficiently front-loaded: it starts with the alias declaration, then states the return purpose and enumerates specific contents. Both sentences earn their place, providing essential identity and functional details without redundancy. No unnecessary words or verbose elaboration.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned and scopes it to the current user. It does not describe return formatting or any potential caveats beyond 'when available', but the enumeration of statistics gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke and interpret results. A small gap is the lack of guidance on how this relates to get_my_usage_stats in terms of selection, but the alias hint mitigates this.

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?

Input schema covers the single parameter 'top_n' with a description ('How many of the user's top connectors / tools / skills to return'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description mentions 'top connectors / tools / skills' which aligns with the parameter's purpose, but does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Thus 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 clearly states the tool returns personalized user statistics and usage summary, enumerating specific data points (total tool calls, skill invocations, question counts, top connectors/tools/skills, token-savings estimates). It also identifies itself as an alias for get_my_usage_stats, providing explicit identity and scope, which distinguishes it from the many connector and skill tools in the sibling list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement 'Alias for get_my_usage_stats' acknowledges a sibling but does not explain any selection preference, exclusions, or preconditions. The description implies usage for retrieving the current user's statistics, but lacks clearer contextual direction.

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