overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the read-only nature of the tool by detailing what information it reports, and it adds context about the aggregation of data across stores, apps, and sync runs. It does not mention any side effects, but the framing makes clear it is a query-only operation. It does not contradict any annotation since none exist.

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 exceptionally concise, leading with 'Start here.' and then a compact list of what the tool reports. It has no filler and is front-loaded with the most important usage signal. The Args section is minimal and clear, making the entire definition easy to parse at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool reports and the meaning of the parameter. There is no missing information an agent would need to decide whether to call this tool or to understand its high-level behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so fully by explaining the sole parameter 'days' as the 'Look-back window for the totals,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the parameter's purpose and effect.

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 a specific verb ('reports') and resource ('overall state of the OxiLytics instance'), listing exactly what it covers: configured stores, app/product counts, totals over a look-back window, and recent sync outcomes. It also positions itself as the entry point ('Start here'), distinguishing it from the more focused sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage context with 'Start here' and frames the tool as answering 'how are things doing' and 'is anything broken' in a single call. It implies this is the first stop, but it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when to use them instead. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this for high-level status checks.

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