Verdict and reason rollups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free (does not consume quota) and operates over a rolling window, adding behavioral context. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'aggregate view' strongly implies it. This is useful beyond schema.

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 three short sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second adds the free/quota trait, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what is returned conceptually, the rolling window behavior, the free trait, and the suggested usage workflow. No critical information is missing.

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% for the single parameter (window_hours), so the schema already fully documents it. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics, but that is unnecessary. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: an aggregate view over a rolling window with totals by verdict, average score, and most common reasons. It also differentiates from siblings by saying 'Start here... before drilling into individual events,' positioning it as the initial overview tool.

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 usage guidance: 'Start here to see what changed before drilling into individual events.' This tells the user when to use it (first, for an overview) and implies that event-level tools are for subsequent drilling. It also mentions the free/quota aspect, which is a practical consideration.

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