get_org_scores_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the return structure (range, users, errors) and the concurrency parameter, which hints at potential parallel execution. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or performance considerations for large orgs. The disclosure is good but not exhaustive.

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 fairly long but well-organized. It starts with the tool's purpose, then clearly presents parameters with bullet points, and ends with the return structure. It is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall it is effective.

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 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers parameter behavior, mutual exclusivity, and return structure. It addresses the missing schema coverage. However, it does not mention error handling, pagination, or limits beyond max_users default. For most uses, it is complete enough.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by listing all 6 parameters with types, defaults, and mutual exclusivity rules (date selection: mutually exclusive). It adds format hints (YYYY-MM-DD) and constraints (days int>=1). This provides significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Bulk: scores summary across users in the org.' This indicates a bulk operation for the entire organization, distinguishing it from individual score tools like get_scores. The verb 'get' and resource 'org scores summary' are specific and unambiguous.

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 notes the mutually exclusive date selection (date OR start_date+end_date OR days) and lists all parameters with defaults. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_scores, but the bulk nature is implied. A slight improvement could be an explicit alternative suggestion.

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