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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the baseline is lower. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns aggregate data and excludes sensitive fields like IP addresses and user agents, which is a behavioral characteristic not present in 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing necessary detail about what is excluded.

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, read-only metrics tool, the description is largely complete. It explains the kind of data returned and the absence of sensitive fields, though the exact response shape is not described. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the return format could be useful, but the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics to clarify. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for it to compensate for.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('aggregate job-discovery and signed-application counts'), making it clear what the tool does. It also differentiates itself by explicitly noting what is excluded ('without IP addresses, user agents or request bodies'), which distinguishes it from other getters that might return detailed request data.

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 for privacy-preserving aggregate metrics, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or name any sibling. Guidance about when not to use it (e.g., when needing detailed logs) is only implied by the 'aggregate' and 'without' phrasing.

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