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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description explicitly states that the output is a public aggregate that tracks the library and leaks no proprietary data. This is valuable behavioral context (privacy guarantee) that annotations do not provide.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with what the tool answers, and the parenthetical adds essential qualifiers without wasting words. Every phrase contributes.

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 zero-parameter capability query with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it states the output concept and its privacy boundaries. It does not give a concrete output shape, but no output schema exists and the aggregate nature is described well enough for an agent to invoke 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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter semantics burden. Schema description coverage is 100% trivially, and no doc comments are 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 states the tool reports what DeepMap can answer now plus coverage counts, which is a clear, specific purpose. It doesn't use an imperative verb like 'List' but the resource and scope are unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, though its meta/coverage nature is apparent from content and sibling names.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., before choosing a specialized tool like ground_truth or check_hypothesis). The purpose implies it is a coverage/overview query, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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