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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is self-aggregating from CF analytics-engine, contains no PII, returns '(pack, tool, count)' data, and discloses caching behavior (5min-1h depending on window). Annotations already indicated read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of use cases and a concise technical note. Every sentence adds relevant information with no filler, and the structure is clear and appropriately sized.

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?

Given only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return contents (top tools, top packs, total call volume) and the tuple format (pack, tool, count). It also covers caching and privacy, making it complete for the tool's simple 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?

The single `window` parameter is already fully documented in the schema with enum values and a clear description of trade-offs. The tool description merely restates the window options and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window (24h, 7d, or 30d).' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on aggregated agent call trends, not just listing available tools like `discover_tools`.

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 lists three concrete use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool choice, and aligning with typical agent needs. This provides clear when-to-use context, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, stopping short of a 5.

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