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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Self-aggregating signal — derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, just (pack, tool, count). Cached 5min-1h depending on window.' This discloses aggregation and caching behavior beyond the annotation profile.

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 a clear one-liner, followed by a structured list of three use cases and a final technical note. While longer than minimal, every sentence adds value; the structure makes it scannable. It's not as concise as get_calls but well-organized.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers output ('top tools, top packs, total call volume'), data shape ('(pack, tool, count)'), and caching behavior. It doesn't specify exact response formatting, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 schema covers the single 'window' parameter at 100% including enum values and descriptions of behavior. The tool description only mentions the window in passing and does not add new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with 'What other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now' and explicitly states it 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' by focusing on real-time aggregated call volume.

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 provides three explicit use cases (hot data sources, canonical tool confirmation, alignment with agent needs), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full 5.

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