panel_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the aggregation scope (whole-panel, one call), the bandwidth look-back windows (2 days / 7 days / month), and the expiring-subscriptions section, which helps the agent predict the payload. It doesn't discuss cost, caching, or freshness limits.

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, front-loaded with the summary content and ending with the routing cue. The content list is dense but each item is a distinct section of the return, so little is wasted.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it enumerates every major section. No required parameters exist, and annotations cover the read-only nature, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 expiringDays parameter is documented with a default and range in the schema. The description only alludes to it via 'subscriptions expiring soon' and adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description states a concrete verb+resource ('One-call panel summary') and enumerates the exact aggregates returned: users by status/online, node list with online/offline state, per-node traffic, bandwidth over 2d/7d/month, and expiring subscriptions. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_stats, get_recap, or get_stats_digest.

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 positions itself as the entry point with 'Start here for "how is the panel doing" questions,' which gives a clear usage context. It does not name a specific alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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