get_plant_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added contribution is the set of data categories returned, which largely duplicates the existing output schema; it says nothing about refresh/staleness of the counts or how 'overdue' and 'critical (A)' are defined.

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 filler. The scannable inventory of returned metrics comes first and the imperative routing instruction ('Call this first') is placed where it will be acted on.

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 zero-parameter dashboard tool, the definition covers everything an agent needs: safety semantics come from annotations, return shape from the output schema, and the description supplies the content scope plus the ordering cue. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so by convention this dimension baselines at 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing pseudo-parameters such as a plant or time-range filter.

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?

Names a concrete aggregation resource (plant overview) and enumerates exactly what it returns: asset, active alarm and work-order counts, overdue work, and critical (A) assets with unacknowledged alarms. The 'counts' framing cleanly separates it from the list_*/get_* siblings, which return records rather than totals, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

'Call this first' is explicit, actionable sequencing guidance that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the other nine siblings. It stops short of naming a when-not-to-use condition or an alternative for deeper drill-down, so it is clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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