reliability_for

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose what operations are performed, what happens to resources, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, more transparency about data aggregation or query behavior would help.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and easy to read. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the key action (e.g., 'Get reliability stats...'). As it is, it is very brief but not wasteful.

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 no parameter descriptions in the schema and no output schema details provided, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'reliability stats' include, how the window is applied, or how the category is specified. For a tool with only 2 parameters, the description should at least clarify the expected inputs.

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 hints at 'one category' and 'over a window' but does not explain the format, allowed values, or meaning of the parameters. The parameter 'window_days' has a default but no explanation of how it affects results.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides reliability stats for a category over a window, which distinguishes it from siblings that handle other functions like accept_candidate or agent_status. However, 'stats' is vague and could be more specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use, or when not to use. The sibling list contains many tools with similar operations, but the description offers no differentiation.

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