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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output scale (0-10) and that the result is an average across matching logins, which is useful. It omits key behaviors such as permission requirements, what happens when no logins match, and whether all-time data is included when filters are omitted.

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 and front-loads the metric and scale before giving the usage example. Every sentence adds information without repetition or 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?

For a simple read-only aggregate tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return value (0-10 average risk score) and filtering intent. It is nearly complete, though it could mention empty-result behavior or default scope.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds only a single example showing that filters answer targeted questions; it does not add syntax, combination behavior, or precedence beyond the schema.

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 exact metric returned (average login risk score, 0-10) and the domain (matching logins). It does not explicitly distinguish this aggregate metric from siblings like get_login_stats or get_login_breakdown, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example question ('what is my average login risk score for the chrome browser') gives an implied usage scenario and shows how filters apply. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools such as get_login_stats.

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