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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data in real-time and covers all jurisdictions, implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The absence of an output schema means the description partially compensates by listing the returned metrics, but it omits any caveats or additional behavioral details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then lists the specific outputs and scope. It is concise with no filler, and every word adds meaning.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the content of the response (coverage metrics, scrapers, record counts). It specifies the scope (32 European jurisdictions) and indicates real-time data. It does not detail the exact structure of the response, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully covered vacuously (100%). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information.

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's function: retrieving real-time database coverage metrics, active scrapers, and record counts across a defined scope (32 European jurisdictions). The verb 'Get' specifies the action, and the resource is concrete. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_company_details or search_insolvencies, which have different subjects.

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 usage by stating what it returns, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context on scenarios where it is appropriate. For a read-only statistics tool, this is acceptable but not thorough. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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