Two-way communication health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing what the summary includes and the verification purpose (confirming two-way delivery), which helps the agent set expectations about output content beyond the generic annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and deliverables; the second provides the actionable usage context. Every phrase earns its place, and the key scope ('two-way') is stated immediately.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the result contains—it does so by naming all key fields. It also supplies the integration scenario and verification goal, which is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and use the tool.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no unnecessary parameter guidance, which is appropriate 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('SDK ↔ admin two-way reporter health for a host app'), then enumerates the exact data points covered. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_recent_reports or reply_to_reporter, which focus on one side of the communication flow.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'after wiring @mushi-mushi/web in a Vite/Capacitor app to confirm reports land in the console and admin/MCP replies reach the in-app widget.' This gives a clear temporal and functional context, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it.

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