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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing what data is not stored (no IP, user-agent, etc.), enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 concise two sentences that front-load the action and essential details, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description, together with annotations and output schema, covers the tool's purpose and constraints. It lacks mention of update frequency or caching but is otherwise complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and behavior. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 aggregate 7/30-day MCP usage, fixed client families, tool mix, and reliability. It specifies what is included and what is not stored, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_data_quality or get_confluence_methodology.

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 implies usage for obtaining aggregate statistics and clarifies privacy aspects (no IP, user-agent, etc.), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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