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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it reveals the data source ('derived from CF analytics-engine'), privacy ('no PII'), and caching behavior ('Cached 5min-1h depending on window'). This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without overclaiming.

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 compact yet information-dense. It opens with the core purpose, then provides a bullet-style list of use cases, and closes with technical details. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value, use cases, data provenance, privacy, and caching. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'window' parameter, including the enum values and semantic explanation ('Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand'). The description only repeats the window options without adding new meaning, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window (24h, 7d, or 30d).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the use cases listed distinguish it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or 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 provides three explicit use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming a canonical tool choice, and checking alignment with other agents' needs. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the guidance is clear and actionable for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool.

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