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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The word 'get' implies it is non-mutating, but this is not explicit. The description carries the full burden and fails to disclose behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It clearly states the action and the key result aspects, making it well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

The description provides the core purpose but lacks details about the output format (e.g., is it a list, object, summary?), any limitations (e.g., date range constraints, maximum results), or examples. Given the absence of an output schema, some additional context would improve completeness, but the simple getter nature makes it acceptable.

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 already provides descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)', 'Operator API key'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond these, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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 specifies that the tool retrieves usage analytics (calls, revenue, top callers) for a server, which is distinct from sibling tools like get_revenue that might focus on a single metric. The scope is well-defined.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_revenue or get_server). It lacks contextual cues such as 'use when you need overall usage rather than just revenue' or any exclusionary conditions.

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