opencdr_signals_stats

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, so the description wisely spends its words on traits annotations don't carry: the 7-day default when no dates are supplied, UTC YYYY-MM-DD inclusive semantics, and a hard 31-day maximum range. It even explains that the 31-day bound matches the date-range constraint used by opencdr_signals_search's severity selector, which is real cross-tool behavioral context. The lone redundancy is the bare 'Read-only.' line, which merely echoes readOnlyHint=true.

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 summary-vs-listing distinction is front-loaded in the first two lines and every subsequent sentence adds a concrete constraint or the return shape. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape ({date_from, date_to, counts by severity, total}) and all range constraints, so an agent can call it and interpret results. Only the one-sided date-range behavior and whether unreported severities are omitted from 'counts' are unaddressed.

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 has to carry the two nullable date params, and it does: format, UTC, inclusivity, the no-dates default, and the max span. The remaining gap is the single-date case — it says what happens if 'neither' date is given but not what the other bound defaults to when only one is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Signal counts by severity for a date range') and immediately positions the output as an aggregate summary rather than a list. It names the sibling opencdr_signals_search and states the distinction, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

'A dashboard/summary view, not a substitute for opencdr_signals_search's paginated item listing' gives both the when (aggregate counts) and the when-not (per-item listing), naming the exact alternative to use instead. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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