Policy Execution Counts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about fleet-wide scope, time window, and single round-trip, but doesn't add beyond what annotations already cover. Still clearly explains what the tool does.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action and result. No unnecessary words and ends with sibling differentiation. Very concise.

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?

Given rich annotations and output schema, description covers high-level purpose and usage well. However, missing parameter details leaves some incompleteness for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Still strong overall.

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 0%, yet description does not explain parameters (start_time, end_time, output_format). Only mentions 'time window' without clarifying format or defaults. Description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'List fleet-wide policy execution counts over a time window: one row per policy with its run count, in a single round-trip.' It distinguishes from sibling tools policy_run_count and policy_runs_for_policy.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (to answer 'which policies ran most last quarter?' without per-policy calls) and contrasts with alternatives, providing clear usage context.

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