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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds value by clarifying the return payload ('counts only, not the media itself') and the retention-window behavior. This goes beyond what annotations convey, giving the agent concrete expectations about the output shape and scope. 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 two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then give a concrete usage trigger. It front-loads the most critical information (what it returns) and then explains when to use it. There is zero filler or redundant phrasing; every word earns its place.

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?

With the annotations covering safety, the schema fully documenting parameters, and an output schema present (though not shown), the description covers everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly. It explains the return type (counts only), the scoping to booths, and the retention nuance. Nothing essential is missing for a read-only statistics tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both projectId and includeExpired having clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only implies the general context of booths and retention. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description adds no extra semantic value, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool does: it reports how much media an operator's booths have produced, broken into total, still active, and expired past retention. This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sessions or get_revenue_summary. The phrasing 'Returns counts only, not the media itself' further disambiguates the scope.

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 explicitly says when to call it: 'Call this when the operator asks how many photos or videos a booth has taken, or whether media is being lost to retention.' This gives clear triggering conditions. It does not name alternative tools for contrast, but the guidance is specific enough that an agent can decide without confusion. A minor omission is not stating when NOT to use it, but the positive triggers are strong.

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