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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds real behavioral context instead: the payload shape (health, errors, latency per env) and, crucially, an output-handling instruction to always append _signatureAscii in a ```text code block, which the agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences: purpose first, output content second, presentation instruction last. Nothing is redundant, though the final formatting instruction is a bit long relative to the rest.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still flags the notable one (_signatureAscii) plus how to present it. For a read-only digest tool with full schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to call it and render the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so envs, hours and context_id are already fully documented with defaults and ranges. The description only implies multi-environment scope and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it generates a complete observability summary for multiple environments, covering health, errors and latency per environment. That multi-environment, cross-pillar scope distinguishes it from per-environment siblings like env_health_summary and env_errors_overview, though it never names them.

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?

Gives a timing hint (once a day, or on request) that implies the intended usage pattern, but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to the narrower sibling tools an agent might prefer for a single environment or metric.

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