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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it makes the read-only nature explicit ("Read"), and since there is no output schema it usefully previews the returned content — status counts, median latency, and the count of untestable registry entries. It does not cover scoping (which agents/tools are counted) or whether the census is historical or point-in-time, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 compact sentences: the payload description is front-loaded, and the default-behavior note follows. Every clause adds information; nothing is padding.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it explains both the input default and the shape of the result. A brief note on what population the census covers (all agents vs. a workspace) is the only meaningful omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD) is already documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by stating that day defaults to the latest, which the schema does not say and which changes how an agent may call it.

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?

"Read the dated census of working agents and tools" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the enumeration of aggregates (counts by status, median latency, untestable entries) clearly separates it from per-record siblings like agentrecord_lookup and agentrecord_search. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus agentrecord_lookup, agentrecord_search, or the mutating siblings. Aggregate/overview usage is only weakly implied by the word "census", and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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