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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description goes well beyond them by disclosing genuinely non-obvious semantics: that in_latest_scan=false does not mean stale, that n_resources counts all-ever-seen while current_verdict_mix counts only the latest full scan, and that verdict_since can span unmeasured weeks. This is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 content-summary is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries distinct semantic payload about a field that is otherwise undocumented. It is dense and occasionally repetitive (last_checked_at is characterized twice), but there is little true filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of explaining return fields and does so thoroughly for the subtle ones. The remaining gaps are the 'host' argument format and behavior on a host with no records, which leaves the definition slightly short for a lookup 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 'host' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what form it takes (hostname, FQDN, IP, inventory ID) or what happens if it is unknown. With total reliance on the schema, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific resource (a host) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (first/last seen, verdict mix, n_resources, verdict changes, gone_since, resources_sample), and the parenthetical '(no time series)' implicitly distinguishes it from a time-series variant. It is clear without needing to name a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as catalogue_stats, drift_status, or payability_verdict. The field semantics hint at the tool's domain but never give a condition for selection or exclusion.

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