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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the data source (CF analytics-engine), the composition (pack, tool, count), privacy (no PII), and caching behavior (5min-1h). This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 three concise sentences followed by a bullet list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. Every sentence provides meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics, it lacks explicit detail about the return format (e.g., JSON structure, field types). Given no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect. However, the tool is simple enough that most agents can infer the output.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter well-described via enum and description, the description adds additional context about how window choice affects results (short vs long windows) and provides a default, which aids selection 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over configurable time windows. It includes three specific use cases that differentiate it from any sibling tool, which all focus on different functionalities.

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 explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choices, aligning use cases) and explains the parameter trade-off (short vs long windows). It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is sufficiently unique among siblings.

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