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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for adding the editor-role authorization requirement and enumerating what the response contains. It does not discuss cost, rate limits, or behavior when no functions exist.

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 sentences, no filler, output contents front-loaded ahead of the use case and the permission prerequisite. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 compensates by listing the returned metrics, and it flags the role requirement. It leaves the exact shape of 'latest errors' and any ordering or empty-state behavior unspecified, but an agent can call it confidently.

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%: project_id is documented and points at dosai_list_projects, and range carries its enum plus a stated default of 7d. The description's 'over a period' only gestures at range, so the schema is doing the real work here.

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 with scope: aggregates calls, successes, errors, success rate and latest errors for every function over a period. The 'For every function' phrasing implicitly separates it from the single-entity dosai_get_function, but no sibling is named 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?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario ('the bot does not book'), which is exactly the diagnostic intent an agent needs to match. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. dosai_list_function_runs for per-run detail), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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