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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this is a discovery/planning step that returns per-topic proverb counts, and it is meant to precede a search. What it does not add, such as ordering or any limits, is largely covered by the existing output schema.

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, both earning their place: the first gives the use case and the payoff, the second routes the agent away to the correct sibling. The routing advice is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

A zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema needs only to say what it returns conceptually and when to pick it over siblings; the description does both. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead frames what the argument-less call yields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('know which topics the Akan proverb collection covers') plus a concrete payload detail ('how many proverbs each has'), which distinguishes it immediately from proverbs.find and proverbs.of_the_day.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when you need to know which topics... before searching it') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Do not use it to fetch proverbs themselves: use proverbs.find'). Both when and when-not are covered with no inference required.

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