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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a 'broad analytical query' that returns a 'ready-to-render chart artifact,' implying aggregation and visual output. It does not discuss pagination or clamping, but those are disclosed in parameter descriptions, and the annotation bar is lower.

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 carry the full purpose, features, and sibling routing. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is given without unnecessary elaboration. Zero filler.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and nested objects, the full schema plus output schema covers the necessary details; the description supplies the high-level mental model and routing. It could have given a concrete example query or noted the read-only nature, but annotations and rich schema make the environment complete enough to call 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has rich documentation (aliases, clamps, pagination source, provenance warnings, enum semantics). The main description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('query') over concrete resources ('claims, solutions, or activity') and lists key capabilities (time filters, grouping, metrics, chart artifact). It explicitly distinguishes itself from atisbo_lookup by naming it and the drill-down use case, so an agent can separate them without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('analytical questions spanning entities or time windows') and names the alternative (atisbo_lookup mode=claim/node) for single-entity drill-downs. This is direct routing guidance, not just an implied context.

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