Get agency overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds aggregation context (it pulls many resource types at once) and ties "recent errors" to the days window, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or freshness of the data.

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, purpose first and usage second, with no filler. The long enumeration of included sections is justified because no output schema exists to describe the return payload.

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 carries the burden of describing return content and does so by listing the aggregated sections, which is what makes this tool callable with confidence. It stops short of explaining the aggregation scope (all clients vs. filtered) or ordering, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'days' is the window for recent errors. The description mentions "recent errors" but adds no format, default, or boundary detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (organization-wide operational overview for an agency) and enumerates the payload sections: clients, channels, queued posts, drafts, published posts, errors and pending approvals. It is clearly distinct from narrow siblings like get_customer_report or get_channel_analytics, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Useful for morning checks and client reporting" gives two concrete usage scenarios, so the agent can infer intent. However, there are no when-not conditions and no routing guidance versus sibling tools such as get_customer_report, leaving the choice of tool largely to inference.

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