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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned metrics and the fact that results are scoped 'for your team', but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or whether counts are aggregated across the team versus per user.

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 waste: the metric list comes first, then the supported filters. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return values an agent needs. Filtering and team scope are covered; only the aggregation granularity and read-only nature are left unstated, which are minor for a stats endpoint.

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%, so the six filter parameters (os, days, device, browser, country, identity_key) are already fully documented with examples. The description's list of filter dimensions only restates the schema and adds no syntax, default, or matching-behavior detail beyond it.

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?

Names a specific resource (login security summary) and enumerates the metrics it returns (total checks, average risk score, high-risk count, blocked/failed logins, bot/Tor/VPN counts). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_average_risk_score or get_login_breakdown, which overlap on the same subject matter.

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 phrase 'Overall login security summary' implies a dashboard-style aggregate use, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_login_breakdown, get_average_risk_score, or get_recent_logins. Usage is left to be inferred from the wording.

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