get_observation_retention_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation.' It adds value beyond the annotation by explaining exactly what is returned: the observation count and the earliest-to-latest retained time span.

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 is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and ends with a useful usage statement. Minor redundancy exists between 'Get aggregate observation count and retained time range' and the later restatement of the same output, which prevents a perfect score.

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 parameterless, read-only tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it names the returned data, confirms the read-only nature, and explains when to call it relative to query_observation_trends.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description's focus on return values is appropriate for a parameterless operation.

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 and resource: 'Get aggregate observation count and retained time range.' It also distinguishes itself from query_observation_trends by clarifying that this tool reports retention status, not observation data trends.

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 description explicitly says 'Use to gauge whether query_observation_trends can cover a desired window,' providing a clear invocation context. It does not list exclusions or alternative conditions, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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