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

The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing the data source ('hourly signed snapshot') and the availability semantics ('available=false when unavailable'), plus clarifying deterministic vs agentic recovery counts.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then packs in the metric list and caveats. It is efficient, though the phrase 'available=false when unavailable' is slightly tautological and several metric names could be more concise.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no parameters, the description does a good job of enumerating what the agent should expect in the result. It covers the metric families and the availability edge case, making the tool callable without additional info. It does not define some internal terms like 'agent-owned surfaces', but this is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description focuses entirely on the output, which is appropriate for a parameterless read-only tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Return the FlareWatch agent's capability surface') and itemizes the exact metrics returned, including playbook counts, autonomous fraction, drill correctness, defects caught, and recovery counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_status or get_recent_agent_actions even without naming them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The description implies its usage through its content, but it does not state conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this is the right choice for capability-surface metrics.

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