get_engagement_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reports counts and metadata (non-mutating, read-like behavior) and details what is included, but does not mention potential side effects, errors, or limits. However, for a summary tool, this level of transparency is adequate; it clearly conveys a safe read operation.

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 description opens with the core purpose ('Counts and metadata for the engagement'), then elaborates with useful strategic guidance in a second sentence. It is slightly verbose but each clause adds value, and the structure is logical—what it does, then when to use it.

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 summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: a comprehensive list of the reported counts and metadata, plus guidance on how to leverage the results. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'engagement' is already described as 'Engagement name; defaults to the bound one.' The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema sufficiently documents semantics.

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 clearly states the tool reports counts and metadata for the engagement, with a specific verb ('reports') and resource ('engagement'). It lists the exact data points returned, distinguishing it from sibling list tools by providing an aggregated overview rather than individual records.

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 instructs to 'Call this first', establishing a clear order of operations. It explains that the output 'tells you which further queries are worth making', guiding the agent on when to use this tool versus querying specific lists, which is a direct usage guideline with a strategic rationale.

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