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

The description adds role requirements beyond the annotations and clarifies the aggregation scope, which is valuable context. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint annotations. However, it doesn't describe return format or pagination, which is acceptable given the annotations already cover safety profiles.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. It efficiently communicates scope and role requirement.

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 provides purpose, scope, role requirement, and lists the specific KPIs returned, which helps an agent understand the value without an output schema. Given the simple read-only nature, good schema coverage, and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly mention the sibling tools for disambiguation.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly specifies the tool's function: retrieving org-wide headline KPIs (run totals, success rate, distinct active agents and users) aggregated across every team. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the listed KPIs distinguish it from other insight tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 use when org-wide headline KPIs are needed and provides a role prerequisite (Admin, Executive, or Owner). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getOrgInsightsMetrics or getOrgInsightsUsageChart, nor does it state when not to use it. The role requirement is useful guidance, but decision-making context is limited.

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