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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds context about the nature of the response (aggregate counts) and explicitly notes it is informational and not legal advice, which enhances transparency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly concise, covering purpose, usage, and caveats in a few sentences. It could be slightly more streamlined but remains focused and easy to scan.

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 no-parameter tool, the description adequately explains what it returns (coverage stats) and its scope (registry size, breakdowns). It does not specify exact output fields, but given no output schema is provided and the tool is straightforward, this is sufficient.

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 no parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately omits parameter explanation since none exist.

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 that the tool provides coverage statistics for the enforcement registry, including counts, breakdowns, and monetary totals. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on aggregate coverage rather than individual records, effectively setting expectations.

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 advises using it when needing to state coverage honestly and clarifies that it returns aggregate numbers rather than a full index. It implies when to use it (for summary stats) and when not to (when full data is required), though it could be more explicit about alternative tools.

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