Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the one-hour window, cross-tenant visibility, and that access is enabled per account with an HTTP 403 meaning contact support. It does not indicate what the health payload contains, which matters because there is no output 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with scope, then the tenant caveat, then the activation path. The only waste is the opening "Stats.", which duplicates the title and 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the coverage is solid: scope, time window, tenant behavior, and the 403 remediation path. The remaining gap is return-shape, since it does not say what 'infrastructure health' surfaces look like (latency, error rates, status codes).

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%, and both parameters carry their own guidance, including the engine/path interplay and the "at least one" constraint. Since the schema already does that work, the description repeating "for an engine or endpoint" carries only baseline value, so a 3 is correct.

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 states a specific resource and scope: infrastructure health for an engine or endpoint over the last hour. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings such as usage (account-scoped) and jobs. The leading "Stats." merely restates the title and adds nothing, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Not scoped to your account or tenant" contains an implicit exclusion that steers the agent toward the account-scoped sibling, usage, and the enablement note acts as a precondition. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so it is a clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.

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