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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the 39-item cap, fixed 30-day UTC bucketing, whole-bucket date selection, and the exclusion of exact-day/player counts. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of output granularity.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The description front-loads the core action and output cap, then immediately clarifies the bucket semantics and limitations. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters, full schema documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the aggregation model, date behavior, and important caveats, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining that date filters select whole overlapping buckets and that results are capped at 39, which clarifies how the date parameters behave in practice beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Nocom observation aggregates and tile templates'), and the key constraints ('up to 39', 'by dimension', 'overlapping fixed 30-day UTC buckets'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_nocom_dataset or get_nocom_highway_activity.

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 about when this tool is appropriate: use it when you want bucket-level aggregates, not exact-day or player counts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', so it stops short of a 5, but the negative guidance ('results are not exact-day counts or player counts') is useful for selection.

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