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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool returns values that occurred, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., aggregation, sorting) are disclosed. For a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with examples. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 (6 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention that results are aggregated counts (if relevant), but the examples imply distinct values. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Overall complete for the task.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters, but most are generic ('Value for the field parameter'). The tool description adds context for the 'field' parameter by explaining its purpose. Other parameters (limit, owner, source, etc.) are not further clarified. Baseline 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 retrieves values that occurred for a specific payload field, with concrete examples like 'which DocumentType values occurred?' This distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., get_xdala_payload_key_stats) by focusing on value lists.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks which values occurred for a specific payload field', providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the examples make the intended scenario obvious.

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