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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what data is included, what data is excluded, and data provenance. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only metadata lookup, whether any freshness guarantees apply beyond 'when the nightly build last ran,' or what the output shape looks like. It is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Three sentences each earn their place: scope, exclusions, and workflow routing. The content is front-loaded with coverage details before the sibling guidance. It is compact, though slightly more verbose than the minimal two-sentence ideal because it repeats some framing around 'hosted Edge Stats.'

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 no output schema and a single generic context parameter, the description provides enough for an agent to decide to call this tool and understand what it will see. It lists the included data categories and gives the recommended next steps. The main gap is not describing the return structure, but for a coverage/metadata tool this is a minor omission.

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 only parameter is a generic `context` field with detailed instructions. The description does not need to explain it and adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource (hosted Edge Stats store) and enumerates its contents: symbols, session calendars, coverage windows, session counts, and nightly build time. It also says what is NOT covered (session statistics from the open-source engine), which separates it from related stats concepts. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'return', so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Start here, then edge_presets for the questions you can ask, then edge_report for a result.' It also tells the agent that session statistics come from the open-source edge-stats engine, preventing misuse of this tool for that data. This is strong when-to-use and alternative-routing information.

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