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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it limits results to the current runtime session on a single machine, distinguishing live counters from long-term aggregates. It doesn't cover caching, refresh cadence, or pagination, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with zero filler; the primary use case is front-loaded and the disambiguation rule follows immediately. Every clause carries routing or scoping 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 an output schema present there is no need to describe return values, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials—scope, counter types, and the sibling boundary—leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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% and the single 'device' parameter is already documented as a ReMCP device id returned by list_devices. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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+resource—counters from the current local runtime session on one machine—and enumerates the counter categories (tool calls, failures, blocks, active sessions). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_usage_statistics), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'use this when' condition scoped to the current local runtime session, then names the boundary case (account-level historical usage aggregated over days) and the alternative tool that handles it. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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