Policy Execution Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions 'in a single round-trip' (efficiency) and 'one row per policy' (aggregation). This is sufficient and consistent with annotations, though more detail on potential time range limits could improve transparency.

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 concise at three sentences: first sentence states the core function, second gives a concrete example question, and third distinguishes from siblings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the return format (one row per policy with run count) and efficiency, but lacks details on parameter formats, null handling, and output structure, making it minimally viable for a simple list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only vaguely references 'over a time window' for start_time/end_time and does not explain output_format or default behaviors. The schema has no descriptions, so the tool definition fails to provide parameter-level guidance beyond the implied time range.

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 states it lists fleet-wide policy execution counts over a time window with one row per policy and run count. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings policy_run_count (single aggregate) and policy_runs_for_policy (per-run records for one policy), making the tool's specific resource and action clear.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use: to answer questions like 'which policies ran most last quarter?' without per-policy calls or client-side aggregation. It also names two alternatives and clarifies that this tool is for fleet-wide aggregated counts, leaving no ambiguity about context.

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