get_org_scores_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return structure ('Returns: {range, users:[...], summary, errors}') and mentions the 'errors' field, which is valuable. It also documents default values for max_users and concurrency. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or describe side effects, but the nature of the tool is inherently non-destructive, and the provided return shape adds 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 well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by a compact parameter list and return shape. Every sentence adds value; the parameter details are necessary given the sparse schema. It is slightly longer than a minimal description but avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

For a bulk summary tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema provided in the prompt, the description adequately covers the necessary context: date selection rules, defaults, and return format. It lacks edge-case behavior or response size warnings, but the included 'errors' field and user list structure make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description is crucial. It explains each parameter with types, optionality, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'days (int>=1)'), and highlights the mutual exclusivity of date parameters—information absent from the schema. It does not deeply explain concurrency semantics, but the name and default provide some context.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Bulk: scores summary across users in the org.' The verb 'get' combined with 'scores summary across users' specifies both the action and the resource scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_scores (likely single-user) and get_org_sleep_summary (sleep instead of scores).

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 explicitly describes mutually exclusive date selection options ('date OR (start_date+end_date) OR days'), providing clear guidance on how to specify the date range. It implies bulk org-level usage against individual tools like get_scores, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the usage constraints are clear.

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