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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the data is account-level, historical, and includes aggregate metrics and breakdowns. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences with zero filler. The primary use case and returned metrics are front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is given in a single clear closing sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with no required parameters, a fully documented schema, and an output schema provided. The description covers the exact use case, the metrics returned, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description lightly reinforces the tool/device filters by mentioning per-tool/per-device breakdowns and frames days as a historical window, but it does not add meaningful syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. The schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning account-level historical ReMCP usage with specific metrics: call counts, success rate, average duration, and per-tool/per-device breakdowns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_runtime_stats by naming the alternative. This fully disambiguates the tool's purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the person asks for account-level historical ReMCP usage over days') and when to use the alternative instead ('get_runtime_stats instead for counters from the current local runtime session on one machine'). This provides clear routing between the two related tools.

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