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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, and caching (5min-1h). This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about data freshness and privacy.

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 concise with 5 sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by use cases and caveats. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the available window options, use cases, caching, and data privacy. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to use this tool.

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 parameter 'window' is fully covered by the schema (100% coverage) with an enum and description. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that shorter windows surface current hotness and longer windows show steady-state demand, enhancing the schema's explanation.

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 what the tool does: returns top tools, packs, and call volume over a recent window. It uses specific verbs ('Returns') and resources ('top tools, top packs, and total call volume'), and the window parameter is explicitly defined. This differentiates it well from sibling tools that focus on asking questions or searching.

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 canonical tools, seeing alignment) and explains the caching behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would elevate the score to 5.

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