get_tool_usage_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the extra facts that the data is local and aggregated per tool, but says nothing about aggregation window, refresh behavior, or what "local" excludes. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is a modest but real addition.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ("local") plus grain ("by tool") are front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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?

The output schema exists and parameters are absent, so return-value detail is not needed. However, the tool sits next to get_usage_stats and reset_usage_stats in the sibling set, and the description does nothing to resolve that overlap — the one piece of context an agent actually needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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?

"Show local aggregate MCP usage by tool" names a specific verb (show), resource (MCP usage), and aggregation grain (by tool), plus a scoping qualifier (local). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_usage_stats, which an agent would reasonably read as the same thing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this should be preferred over get_usage_stats, nor any note that reset_usage_stats is the destructive counterpart. The agent must infer selection from the name alone, and the near-duplicate sibling makes that inference risky.

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