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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states nothing is downloaded, that degraded means 'unknown' rather than 'empty', and includes a strong untrusted-data warning. These behavioral disclosures substantially help an agent use the tool safely.

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 densely useful and front-loaded: main output first, then status semantics, then a vital security warning. Every sentence earns its place; the all-caps IMPORTANT is justified because it warns against prompt injection from returned data.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return structure and status interpretation, and the annotation covers safety. The main missing piece is parameter semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete for a caller, though the output and behavior side is well covered.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never explains what dropId or managementToken are for. The phrase 'an app's records' only indirectly implies dropId identifies the app; managementToken is entirely unaddressed. With no schema descriptions and no parameter information in the description, an agent has little guidance for filling in these fields.

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 states the verb ('Summarise'), the resource (a graduated app's queryable store), and the exact output shape (one line per collection with record count and bytes). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like dropyour_records_list, which would return actual records rather than a summary.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: graduated apps with a store, while Levels 1-3 have no store and return graduated=false. It also explains how to interpret degraded=true. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as dropyour_records_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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