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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds value by explaining what the returned number means semantically and why it is actionable. It stops short of describing the return shape or any caveats about scoping to a project.

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?

Two tightly written sentences; the core count and its meaning are front-loaded and the diagnostic motive follows. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a simple single-parameter count tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the semantics of the number and the diagnostic reason it matters. It could note that the count is scoped to the given project, but this is nearly implied.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including format and a pointer to dosai_list_projects, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high 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 gives a specific verb+resource (count of dialogs the bot is not answering) and clarifies the two underlying causes (operator takeover or the bot being switched off). It is clearly distinguishable from list-based siblings like dosai_list_conversations, though it never names an alternative tool by name.

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?

Usage is only implied via the diagnostic hint that a high number explains 'the bot is silent', which tells the agent this is a troubleshooting metric. There is no explicit statement of when to call this vs. related diagnostics like dosai_get_overview or dosai_get_analytics.

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