Opt-in telemetry & ROI report engine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context: 'zero-PII payload', 'anonymous community' vs 'local' telemetry. However, it never states that 'clear' irreversibly destroys the metrics store, that 'report' writes a file to disk, or that 'enable' with share=true requires acceptTerms — all material behaviors for a tool that includes a destructive action.

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 sentence that front-loads the most-used mode ('Inspect telemetry status') and then lists the remaining actions compactly with zero filler. The 'or'-chained enumeration is slightly list-like but every clause maps to a real enum value.

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 six-action dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all action names but leaves gaps: nothing about what status/inspect/report actually return, nothing about the terminal/irreversible nature of 'clear', and no prerequisites for the anonymous-sharing path. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete.

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%, so each of the four parameters is already documented in the input schema, including the share/acceptTerms coupling and the outputPath default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates all six actions with concrete verbs and objects ('inspect telemetry status', 'generate telemetry markdown reports', 'clear metrics store'), so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It never names or contrasts with a sibling tool, but 'telemetry' is a distinctive domain no sibling covers, making overlap unlikely.

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 action list implies what each mode does, but there is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no explicstatement of ordering or prerequisites, and no hint about which action an agent should pick by default (the schema, not the description, says it defaults to 'status'). Usage is inferable but not directed.

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