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

Annotations already indicate the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results come from a stored snapshot rather than live API calls, which informs freshness expectations. The Pro+ plan prerequisite is also disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences: the first states what stats are returned, the second clarifies the cached nature and disambiguates from live data. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 helpfully enumerates the fields returned. The CEO at cached data and caches. The only minor gap is not pointing to sibling tools for live access or detailed run logs, but the essential calling information is present.

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 all four parameters are already documented clearly. The description only reinforces that statistics are aggregated over a time window, which maps to startTime/endTime, but adds no new parameter meaning 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get aggregated run statistics for a flow from the Power Clarity cache.' It precisely enumerates the statistics returned (total runs, success/failure counts, rates, durations), and explicitly contrasts with live Power Automate API data, which separates it from the live flow siblings.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool returns cached aggregated stats, not live data, and requires a Pro+ plan. This implies when it should be used over live equivalents, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as get_live_flow_runs or get_store_flow_runs.

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