overview_get_detailed_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention read-only safety, side effects, rate limits, or whether data is real-time or cached. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but that is minimal and already part of purpose clarity, not a sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action ('Get detailed overview data') and then lists the key content types. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey return information. It lists high-level data categories but does not describe the response structure, field names, or nesting. For an agent that needs to consume the data, more detail about the exact output format would be helpful, leaving a gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 the tool returns 'detailed overview data' and enumerates specific data types (current scores, team rankings, service up/down ratios, per-service status), giving a clear sense of purpose. It is distinct from siblings through the 'detailed' qualifier, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other overview tools, so it misses the top score.

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 implies this tool is used when detailed overview data including scores, rankings, and service status is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It gives a clear context but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like overview_get_data.

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